Sitting of 26 June 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Lords Message [5th June] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that in the present Session all Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any Report containing such recommendations, be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, to be considered forthwith.— [The Attorney-General.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
10.5 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
Mr. Speaker: I am not selecting the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the Lords Message, to leave out from ' That ' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'it is undesirable at this stage in the Session to enter on consideration of a subject relating to Consolidation Bills which will be better
2
undertaken when the Law Commissions have considered whether recommendations by them as to amendments to be embodied in Consolidation Bills should apply only to amendments which relate to the enactments intended to be consolidated by the relevant Bill and whether both Houses of Parliament should be enabled to debate, accept amend or reject such amendments and to debate, accept, amend or reject such other amendments as relate to the same subject as that of the amendments so recommended'.
The Attorney-General: The purpose of this Resolution is to enable the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill—a bit of a tongue twister on a Monday morning—which was introduced in another place on 10th May, to be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The Resolution is drafted in general terms but there will in fact be no other Bill this Session to which it could apply. The Bill was prepared by the Law Commission in the discharge of the duty to prepare consolidation Bills which Parliament laid upon them by the Law Commissions Act, 1965.
In its First Programme on Consolidation and Statute Law Revision the Law Commission referred to the technical difficulty of producing a satisfactory consolidation without any change in the law, or even with changes, within the necessarily narrow limits of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, and to the practical difficulty of getting a Bill passed which, though not proposing to change the law very materially, is open to amendment on any point.
They expressed the hope that Parliament would be prepared to give a Bill

3
largely the same treatment as a strict consolidation Bill if it consolidated the law
"… with only such amendments as, after due inquiry and consultation, appear to the Law Commission, as a body independent of the Executive, to be required not for the purpose of reforming the substance of the law but for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation."
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill falls within none of the three types of consolidation Bill with which the House is familiar. Perhaps I may remind the House what these types are. First of all, there is consolidation pure and simple, the bringing together into one Act of provisions relating to the same branch of the law which are scattered between a number of Acts. The existing law is reproduced without alteration. This has been called "scissors and paste" consolidation. A Bill setting out to do this cannot be amended so as to change the law.
Next there is consolidation with corrections and minor improvements under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. The 1949 Act procedure enables the existing law to be amended in the process of consolidation in order to resolve ambiguities, to remove doubts, to bring obsolete provisions into conformity with modern practice and for other purposes specified in the Act. Amendments on the floor of the House are precluded by the terms of the Act. However the purposes specified in the Act are limited and it not infrequently happens, when a consolidation Measure comes before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, that there are differences of opinion as to whether an amendment that has been proposed can properly be made within the narrow limits prescribed by the Act.
The third type of consolidation Bill is a Bill which is described in its long title as a Bill to consolidate with amendments. Where a Bill is so described there is no restriction upon the amendments that may be proposed to it in the same way as there is where the Bill is pure consolidation or is a consolidation under the 1949 Act procedure. Because of the additional Parliamentary time that may have to be set aside in order to deal with Amendments that may be proposed to the Bill there are practical difficulties, as the Law Commission pointed out in
4
its first programme, to getting such a Bill passed, and time, despite appearances occasionally to the contrary, is a Parliamentary commodity in short supply.
In the preparation of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill the Law Commission has sought to overcome the difficulties in each of these three types of consolidation Bill. As its title shows, it is neither a strict consolidation Bill, nor one prepared under the Act of 1949, and least of all is it a Bill to consolidate with a completely unrestricted range of Amendments.
It is
"a Bill to consolidate with Amendments … to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission."
These recommendations are set out and explained in a Report which the two Law Commissions have made jointly to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. It was published as a White Paper and no doubt hon. Members will have seen and studied it. The Commission said that most of the amendments recommended by it would clearly fall within the definition of corrections and minor improvements under Section 2 of the 1949 Act. With a few of them this was not so, or not so clear, but even those amendments did not amount to changes substantially greater than could be authorised under that Act.
The Resolution with which the House is asked to concur will secure that both the Bill and Report are referred to the Joint Committee, which no doubt will study them together, more or less as with a Chancellor's Memorandum and a Bill prepared under the 1949 Act. It will not, however, be put to what might be the discomfort and heart and brain searching that is occasionally necessary in order to decide whether any proposed change falls within the difficult definition of "corrections and minor improvements" in the Act.
It will simply have to consider the recommendations on their merits and, if it thinks that effect should be given to them in the way proposed in the Bill, it will pass the Clause or Clauses in question without Amendment. It will be

5
open to the Committee, if it thinks fit, to amend the Bill so as to reject any of the recommendations or to give effect to them in a manner different from that proposed in the Bill.
Sir John Hobson: Would the Attorney-General explain how the Committee can do so, because the Bill will already have been presented in the House of Lords for First Reading, and it will have no statutory power as under the 1949 Act to amend it?
The Attorney-General: As I understand it, there is full power to make amendments within the limitations that I have indicated.
Mr. Ronald Bell: This is rather a double-barrelled interruption, but I am interested in what the Attorney-General has just said, that the Joint Select Committee will doubtless do this. As a member of some years' standing of this Committee, can he say how we will be able to do this?
The Attorney-General: I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty. The nature of the Bill is as described. It is an act of consolidation with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commissions. Presumably those amendments will be examined seriatum, and they can be accepted or rejected or amended in a manner different to that which is proposed.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is some amendment of the terms of reference from this House proposed?
The Attorney-General: No, the nature of the Resolution which I am moving makes possible the procedure that I have indicated for the Joint Committee to follow. If one looks at the Resolution it is:
"That it is desirable that in the present Session all Bills to consolidate any enactment with amendments to give effect to recommendations by … the Law Commissions …"
These recommendations are clearly set out in the Bill, and in the Report, and I would expect that the procedure will be very much as it is now in regard to the situation of the Lord Chancellor's Memorandum and a Bill prepared under the 1949 Act.
6
With regard to my indication to the House that it will be open to the Committee to amend the Bill so as to reject any of the recommendations or give effect to them in a manner different from that proposed in the Bill, this would be possible because most of the recommendations are in the form of broad propositions, capable of being given effect to in more than one way. As to procedure, and what indications would be given to the Joint Committee, I am told that the Chairman of the Joint Committee was present in another place when this Resolution was discussed, and I understand that he indicated no feeling of difficulty in following what is contemplated and proposed.
The Committee will naturally want to satisfy itself that apart from such Amendments as give effect to those recommendations with which it concurs, the Bill reproduces existing law and no doubt it will report whether it is satisfied. When the Bill reaches the House the fetters imposed by the 1949 Act will not apply and the House will be free, if it thinks fit, to review the decisions of the Joint Committee and discuss Amendments designed to reject the recommendations which the Committee has accepted, accept a recommendation which the Committee had rejected, or give effect to a recommendation in a manner different to that proposed in the Bill as reported by the Joint Committee.
It will not be open to hon. Members to move Amendments designed to change the law in a manner that would take the Bill outside its Long Title. I hope that the new procedure will commend itself to the House. I appreciate that some misgivings have been expressed that, in the absence of the restrictions imposed by the 1949 Act, a Bill of this kind might be used to make changes in the law that ought to be the subject of a separate enactment. I am sure, in the first place, that the Law Commissions would never seek to propose such a change, but if there was any room for doubt in a particular case, and the Joint Committee thought that a change which the Law Commissions had recommended should be made only by a separate enactment, it will not be reluctant to say so, and to amend the Bill.
The House will be the final judge when the Bill reaches the Floor so that in my

7
submission there will be ample safeguards to ensure that nothing is done behind Parliament's back. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill is the only one this Session which will fall within the terms of this Resolution. It is very much in the nature of an experiment, but it is significant, and if it succeeds we may hope that the Law Commissions will be able to produce more satisfactory consolidation Bills than would otherwise be possible.
A great deal has still to be done. As my noble Friend remarked in another place, as long ago as 1549 the House of Commons sent to another place a proposal that the statute laws
"should be digested into a body under titles and heads, and put into good Latin".
The Young King, Edward VI, when he thought about this said:
"I have showed my opinion heretofore of the Statutes I think most necessary to be enacted this Session. Nevertheless, I would wish that beside them hereafter, when time shall serve, the superfluous and tedious Statutes were brought into one sum together, and made more plain and short, to the intent that men might better understand them; which thing shall much help to advance the profit of the Commonwealth".
Bishop Burnett observed that this was
"… too great a design to be set on foot or finished under an infant King"
The work is not finished yet. I hope and think that this procedure will help a little and, accordingly, I commend it to the House.
Mr. Speaker: With the approval of the House, the intelligent thing to do will be to discuss this and the subsequent Motion together.
10.20 a.m.
Sir John Hobson: The Opposition are quite prepared to accept the Motion for the experiment, which can be of only the most limited nature since it concerns only one Bill in this Session, a Bill which, I would have thought, would have gone through all its proceedings in both Houses on the nod in any event, as there is nothing in it to be discussed and such proposals as the Law Commissioners would have made would have been only sensible and acceptable. I cannot imagine that there would be any discussion at any stage of that Bill. Therefore, to some
8
extent passing this Motion for this single Bill is not a matter of great importance.
On the other hand, it is important that we should make it clear that by agreeing to this procedural device on this occasion we are not committing ourselves in future, when it might be said that we had agreed to this procedure for the Shellfish Bill and ought therefore to agree to it on some future occasion. I do not want this experiment to be regarded as a precedent.
We agree that it is convenient and desirable that steps should be taken again to face the 400-year-old, if not more ancient, problem of the extent to which Parliament should keep control over alterations in the law, while endeavouring at the same time to see that improvements in the law go through the House with speed, and that, if possible, we consolidate our Statute Book with elegance and with speed and with the help of the Law Commission. But we have some anxieties about what the implications for the future may be if this procedure is employed in other Bills with a wider content and with more politically controversial Amendments although still largely consolidation Measures.
Speaking for myself, I am content that where, at the instance of the Law Commission or anybody else, it is desired to consolidate the law and make Amendments to it which are outside the scope of and greater than the 1949 Act, Parliament itself should discuss only those additional Amendments, with complete liberty to do what it pleases with them, proceeding as to the rest of the Bill as with other consolidation Measures which are pure consolidation.
This proposal does not meet that problem and so far no one has devised a solution to the problem of how Parliament can consolidate the law in a single Measure, as it does at present, but combining that with a form of procedure which would give it complete freedom to make any Amendments where it was proposed that the law should be altered.
I should like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions, particularly about the position of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, when under this proposal it has one or more Bills referred to it. It is quite plain that it will not then be acting within the terms of the

9
original Motion which appointed it on 16th May, 1966. On receiving such a Bill, it will be acting only under this Motion which we will pass today arid which the Lords passed on a previous occasion, and that is singularly uninformative as to directions about how the Committee should proceed, the principles on which it should proceed, its powers, and exactly what it has to do. I understand that the Motion will give that Committee no powers except to consider a Bill which will already have had a First Reading in one or other House and to make a report thereon which will agree with the proposals of the Law Commissioners or say that the change should he made on some different principle, or that it is a matter for separate legislation.
I am still puzzled about how it will be possible for the Committee actually to amend the Bill which will already have then been presented. At the moment, it can alter Bills which are sent to it by the force of the 1949 Act, but it will have no power of any sort, once a Bill has been presented to either House, to alter that Bill in any direction. All it will be able to do will be to make a report to the two Houses making such comments as it thinks fit on the Bill, on the consolidation part or on the proposals to amend the law which the Law Commissioners have put forward, or to say that it thinks that additional Amendments should be included. So far as I can see, this proposal does not limit the Committee's powers to comment or report on the Bill in any direction it pleases, but it gives it no power to alter the Bill, or to do anything except to express its own opinion.
The other important point is what would be the position if the Joint Committee decided, as it could under the 1949 Act, that one or other of the proposed amendments ought to be dealt with by separate legislation. In the other place the Lord Chancellor gave an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, that it would be possible for the Committee to act, as it does under the 1949 Act, and to say that a certain proposal ought to be dealt with by separate legislation, but it has no power under this Motion to leave out a proposal. It could make that report to either House, but, as I understand it, that would be the total extent of its power.
10
The Attorney-General explained that when a Bill which had been through this procedure arrived at this House, it would be possible for the House only to accept the proposed amendments of the Law Commissioners, or to accept the alternative proposals of the Joint Committee, or to leave the law as it was, but not to adopt a solution which it thought suitable. While we all admire the members of the Law Commission, who would not knowingly or intentionally do anything which was unacceptable or ridiculous, it is possible to have different views about Amendments to the law and twice in the present Session the Committee has rejected proposals in Bills which had a very respectable origin.
I would have thought that the one essential principle was that, however respectable the parenthood of a Bill, whether it came from a Government Department, a nationalised industry, from private legislation, or from the Law Commissioners, or any citizen of the realm, Parliament was expected to be supreme and to have complete power when it was proposed to alter the law to see what alterations should be made, and that we ought not to be placed in a position in which we had to leave the law as it was, or accept the proposals of the Law Commissioners when we liked neither situation. If the House is to be limited by the Long Title of the Bill and I have never understood that, because I have always thought that it was the scope and not the Long Title of a Bill which bound the House—the Long Title will refer only to Amendments proposed by the Law Commissioners.
Therefore, if the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation, having had such a Bill referred to it, proposed an amendment which was not within the principle which the Law Commissioners had proposed, it would not be possible, as I understand the Attorney-General's argument, for this House and the other House to adopt the Joint Select Committee's proposal. If that Committee is limited to accepting the principles or the general proposals within the scope of the Amendment which the Law Commissioners proposed, and if this House is to be similarly limited, Parliament will find itself in the position of leaving the law as it is or adopting the Commissioners' proposal

11
when it thinks that neither is sensible and finds itself unable to adopt that course.
This point will arise for your decision, Mr. Speaker, when such a Bill comes before the House. But I remind the Attorney-General that Erskine May expressly states at page 554 that on a consolidation Bill with Amendments it is open to this House to table any Amendments to it, even as to the consolidation parts, which it pleases, and Erskine May does not limit that power to the occasions when some person other than the Law Commissioners or other official body propose the Amendments. If the principle is that a consolidation Bill with Amendments can be amended in any direction which this House desires, that principle applies whoever the person was who originally proposed the Amendment.
I believe that the authority upon which those who take the view that the hands of this House would be tied rely is the precedent of the Highways Act, 1959. But it was said from the Government benches during the proceedings on that Act that there was an agreed procedure under which the House applied a self-denying ordinance to itself not to put in Amendments of principle to what was substantially a consolidation Measure. But it was certainly never ruled from the Chair during the proceedings on that Measure that Amendments were out of order because they went beyond the scope of the proposals. Many Amendments were moved and none was objected to. In Committee, the Chair never ruled that the power of hon. Members to amend that Bill in any way was limited.
While this point will not arise on the Shellfish Bill, because I cannot imagine that anybody is likely to table a major Amendment to it, if we are to have this procedure, then the freedom of the House to ensure that legislation is in accordance with its wishes and is not left in a position in which it must choose between alternatives neither of which it likes should be preserved so that the supremacy of Parliament in legislation is a reality and is not bound by technicalities.
This is an interesting experiment. I am sorry that it will not prove of great utility during this Session. We do not desire to oppose it, but we do not wish it to be treated as a precedent that we
12
necessarily agree that all the respects in which might be used should be accepted by the House.
10.34 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I have been looking in vain at the Message from another place for any mention of shellfish. The Resolution goes very much wider than the consolidation of the law relating to shellfish. It may be that the Shellfish Bill is the one Bill which will be affected during this Session, but for all we know some other Bill may come forward dealing, not with shellfish, but with something which the House thinks is of far greater importance than shellfish which is affected by this Resolution.
Therefore, let us dispose of the point once and for all that we are discussing only the consolidation of the law relating to shellfish. We are discussing the consolidation of any law. Once we have passed a Resolution of this sort, although it may be limited in time to this Session, it will stand as a precedent which it will be very difficult to break if we find that there is a mistake in it.
The Message, with great respect to those in another place who drafted it, leaves a great deal to implication or even to imagination. The Amendments to which it refers are unlimited in scope. The Resolution does not state the type or nature of the Amendments with which it intends to deal. The Joint Committee to which the recommendations are to be referred is not informed by the Resolution of its function in respect of these Amendments. Its function is left undefined and its terms of reference concerning the recommendations are unstated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said, they cannot be the terms of reference which were given to the Committee at the beginning of this Session. Those terms of reference do not cover recommendations from the Law Commission.
The third point of vagueness about the Resolution is its effect on the deliberations and debates of this House or its intention concerning those debates.
Therefore, there are three matters which I feel the House should consider with great care before accepting the Message. First, what kind of Amendments are we talking about in the

13
Resolution? In that respect, the Resolution is not happily worded in that it speaks of
"amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions…"
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, one would not expect some strange Amendments unrelated to the consolidation Bill under consideration to come from the Law Commission. There may be a very great difference of opinion about whether some recommendation from the Commission is within the scope of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor was asked in another place whether the wording of the Resolution referred to Amendments relating directly to consolidation or whether it included Amendments to reform the legislation which were not absolutely or directly related to the process of consolidation. His reply was:
"Yes, the Amendments proposed in this or any subsequent similar Bills will all be related to the consolidation. They deal merely with difficulties which are found to arise when the Parliamentary draftsmen attached to the Law Commission start to consolidate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th June, 1967; Vol. 283, c. 196.]
This was the assurance of the Lord Chancellor, but it does not appear in the Resolution. In no way are the Amendments limited when mentioned in the Resolution.
I therefore ask the Attorney-General to give as an undertaking in such form as the Lord Chancellor gave in another place, namely, that the Amendments will relate only to matters closely within the scope of the consolidating Bill which is under consideration. Without such undertakings, the House ought not to accept the Resolution.
My second point concerns the function of the Joint Select Committee in dealing with recommendations from the Law Commission. I had assumed when I first read the Resolution that the intention was that recommendations from the Law Commission should be in the nature and have the effect of the memorandum from the Lord Chancellor which goes before the Joint Select Committee when it is desired to make minor improvements and corrections to the law. That was what I thought must be the
14
intention of the Resolution. That must have been muddled thinking on my part, however, because one cannot possibly accept that position without a change in the law.
It was necessary in 1949 to put on the Statute Book an Act empowering the House and Parliament to deal with legislation in that way. Once the Joint Select Committee accepts the Lord Chancellor's recommendations, what is then embodied in the Bill must be treated as existing law when the matter comes back to this House and can be discussed only on that basis. We cannot give recommendations from the Law Commission the same force as the memorandum from the Lord Chancellor. That memorandum is supported by the 1949 Act. If it was intended that recommendations from the Law Commission should have similar force, this should have been stated in the Law Commission Act.
The third point which should be carefully considered before we accept the Resolution concerns the limitation of debates in this House upon a Bill which is stated to contain recommendations from the Law Commission for Amendments. Is it intended to limit the scope of this House in debating such a Bill? It must have been so intended when the Resolution was passed in another place, otherwise I cannot see the purpose of it.
There are three forms of consolidation: pure consolidation, consolidation with corrections and minor improvements under the 1949 Act, and consolidation with Amendments. As I understand the law, there are no limitations upon the powers of this House merely because a Bill has been referred to and considered by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation. This process does not in itself restrict the House from debating the contents of a Bill and making Amendments to it.
One therefore has to consider which of the three categories embraces a Bill of the type included within the Resolution and containing Amendments recommended by the Law Commission. It obviously does not come within the category of pure consolidation, to which the Attorney-General has referred as scissors and paste, because it would be intended to include something more than consolidation.

15
As I have tried to point out, it could not come within the 1949 Act so that the recommendations were to be assumed to be law before the Bill comes back to this House. That could be done only by legislation. Therefore, we are left with the position that it must come under the third category of consolidation with Amendments. If that is the case, it is open to debate in the House and to Amendment without any restriction.
The Lord Chancellor, in another place, referred to the Highways Bill as showing that in the event of consolidation with Amendments there is some sort of restriction on the powers of this House to debate and amend the Bill. With respect, I think that the Lord Chancellor was entirely wrong. I recollect taking part in the debates on that Bill and endeavouring to amend two Clauses, and I was never ruled out of order on those Amendments.
There is, therefore, no restriction on the power of this House to debate and amend a Bill which consolidates with Amendments except so far as concerns the Long Title, but that is a restriction which applies to all Bills presented to this House.
The debate may be narrowed to some extent by the fact that the House will have before it a Report from the Joint Select Committee which will, no doubt, point out the new law which it is desired to include in the Bill, and the House will, no doubt, direct its attention to that. The Report of the Joint Select Committee might be of great assistance to the House in narrowing the issues and time might be saved, but if it is suggested that the mere reference of a Bill to the Joint Select Committee restricts the powers of this House, that assumption is wrong and we should not confirm it in any way when passing the Resolution.
Therefore, if we are to accept the Resolution in the terms in which it appears on the Order Paper, I ask the Attorney-General to give the House an undertaking that Amendments which are recommended by the Law Commission will be closely within the purpose of the consolidation Bill in question, that the Joint Select Committee will not, without legislation or a new reference or an alteration in our Standing Orders, be empowered to make Amendments which go
16
beyond consolidation and thirdly, that the Government will not seek to restrict the House in the form of debate upon a Bill the purpose of which is consolidation with Amendments.
10.48 a.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I am very unhappy about the Resolution. It comes before the House towards the end of June as being applicable only to the present Session, and we are told that it is applicable only to a certain Bill about shellfish which I have not seen. I understand that if the Resolution is passed, that Bill will be referred to the Joint Select Committee.
All this is very attractive, but there are, to me, two fatal objections to it. I would be happy if I could oppose it effectively and even take it to a Division, but it is useless to do that because I am addressing only half a dozen or so hon. Members and, if a matter like this were voted on, it would be voted on late at night and nothing that is said between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning could have any bearing upon the decision. That is one of the great defects of morning sittings.
Nothing is worse than that hon. Members should not know where they are on procedure. The Attorney-General said that as a result of the Resolution, there was no danger of anything being done behind the back of Parliament. Let us be frank about it. Everything that goes through the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation is done behind Parliament's back with the statutory concurrence of Parliament. Hon. Members of this House—over 600 of them—know that a matter has been referred to the Joint Select Committee. They assume that it is simply lawyers' stuff, that it is purely consolidation and that if anything which is not consolidation is attempted, the Joint Select Committee will pick it up and deal with in it some way and that they need not, therefore, concern themselves with Bills of that nature and they do not do so.
The rules for speaking in debate on consolidation Measures in this House are such as to discourage even the most ingenious and persistent hon. Member. That being so, the procedure works so long as it is strictly defined as a statutory authority and everybody does his job. Once we begin to blur the outlines,

17
I am sure that what, in practice, will happen because of the pressure of time and business on hon. Members will be that they will assume that the Joint Select Committee is doing its job, whereas it is not and will not be in a position to do so. That is my principal objection.
It was said by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords that, after all, there are safeguards against anything untoward happening. He said that he was sure that
"we can rely on the good sense of the Law Commissions"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th June, 1967; Vol. 283, c. 183.]
The noble Lord said that the reason for that was that if the Law Commissions proposed changes which were controversial and took up a great deal of time on the Floor of the House, the Government Whips would say "Never again". I am sure we can rely on the good sense in legal matters of the Law Commissions.
How far we can rely on the Government Whips is perhaps a more controversial matter, but, of course, the good sense of the Law Commission is a specialised good sense. They are people who, by experience and knowledge, are particularly suitable for suggesting changes in the law which are of a legal, technical or a professional kind, not the kind of good sense at would know how much political significance there was in them. They, I do not doubt, put forward very good reports on those branches of the law which are recommended to them, but, of course, the changes they propose can be brought into force only by the exercise of the legislative authority of Parliament.
The second safeguard was that Parliament can rely on the experience of the Joint Committee to which these matters are proposed to be referred. I am very flattered by that. I served on that Committee for about 10 years, but I say this about the Committee. At the moment, we operate under a statutory procedure which is laid down in the 1949 Act. That Committee is set up each Session to be the Committee under this Act, and its functions are known. Even the words in which it should report are set out in the Act. If we make a report it has some significance.
This Session, for the first time, I think during the years I have served on the Committee, we have, in effect, rejected
18
two Measures because they were not consolidation Measures. This, taken alone, might seem an argument in favour of the Resolution because it would be said, "These people turn back things which ought not to get through." But there was a good deal of argument and exchange on at least one of those occasions. The Lord Chancellor was by no means happy about what we were doing and memoranda went back and forth as to the proper functions of the Joint Committee.
That Committee held a special meeting to consider those memoranda and their proper functions and it was urged on us very strongly by the Lord Chancellor that we ought to take a robust view of consolidation. When I tell the House that the matter on which it was urged that we should take a robust view on consolidation was a proposal in the capital allowances Bill to withdraw from ship owners the right to depreciation allowance on ships which they have been enjoying and are enjoying, I think that the House will realise that we were being asked to take a robust view.
We were being asked to reverse by a decision of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation an established practice of the Inland Revenue and to impose on some of Her Majesty's subjects taxation which, in some cases, must run into six figures. The point I am making is that there should never have been any doubt about that and that some of us should have had to fight for the doctrine and that this was monstrously outside the scope of the Joint Consolidation Committee. The other Bill—I have even forgotten its title now—was one on which we made a special report to the House saying that it was not a consolidation Bill. These are the pressures operating on the Joint Select Committee. Against that background it is proposed to refer to us Bills embodying improvements in the law which are recommended by the Law Commission.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), said, the terms of reference given by the House on 16th May to the Committee will have no relevance for this. They cannot have. They are the ones which are appropriate

19
to the 1949 Act and the consolidation and state of the law revision work of the Committee. So all that we can look at is the Message from the Lords which is on the Order Paper today. All that the Message says is
"That it is desirable in the present Session"
that the sort of Bill to which I have been referring should
"be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation &c. Bills …"
I do not doubt that as the Attorney-General said, the Committee will deal with matters which are referred to it by Resolution of both Houses. The Committee will feel it its duty to do so, but how is it to deal with them? This will not fall under its statutory procedures. The Committee is given no guidance in the Resolution about what it is to do. It is given no powers to do anything. So presumably it will deal with this matter according to the law of common sense and do the best it can, do what seems sensible.
Where do we get in a matter like this if a Committee has to use its commonsense and the whole thing relies upon a doctrine of inherent jurisdiction or inherent power in some Committee set up by some Resolution of this House? Once we start on that course, hon. Members will not know where they are. The Committee will not know what report to make. Whatever report it makes will have no effect. As I understand, when the Committee reported that the provision in the capital allowance Bill was not consolidation, the Bill could go no further through the consolidation procedure. The report had some effect, but a report coming back from the Committee on a Bill referred to it under this Resolution will have no effect at all, apart from that which it may have on the mind of any hon. Member who reads it.
This brings me to my last point, which is that it is very attractive for proposals to be made to this House for business to be taken off the Floor of the House and sent to some Committee upstairs. It is always said that this will save time. It is quite another matter to get people to attend these Committees, and do the work. I know that the Joint Committee is in constant quorum trouble, and this
20
proposal is one to add enormously to its work.
When, at Question Time some months ago, the Attorney-General was pressed on a proposal of this kind, I suggested that he should be very careful in his consideration of it, at it would so greatly add to the burden of work of that Committee. He was then kind enough to say that this was a factor to be borne in mind. It does not seem to have been borne in mind very effectively, because it is not just a matter of shellfish—there is probably nothing in a shellfish Bill.
The trouble is that in the next Session a similar Resolution will come forward which will attract as much enthusiasm and as large an attendance as this one, and it will then be said, "We had this the last Session. We tried it out then. There was one Bill. It all worked very happily." I do not think that it could work anything but happily in relation to a shellfish Bill. But it would become part of the procedure.
The trouble is that this proposal has not been thought through. No one seems to be quite sure what the House will be able to do when the Bill comes back here. Bodies outside the House itself can be helpful, whether they be Law Commissions or others. Reference has been made to the Highways Bill. That was drawn up by a Committee under the chairmanship of the Marquess of Reading. I was a member of the Committee. We just drew up a Bill consolidating highways law with minor amendments. When we had done that, there was the Bill and that was that. It did not have any status or any particularity just because it had been drawn by the Reading Committee. It was presented as an ordinary Bill, and those who wanted to make wider Amendments to it could propose them.
But what is now suggested and, indeed, what is growing up is a kind of Bill which the House would do very well to watch carefully—the Bill of which the Long Title is such that the House cannot give proper consideration to the Bill. If these Bills are referred to the Consolidation Committee, it is not the fact that they are so referred or that the Committee makes some kind of report—goodness knows what—to the House—that has nothing to do with it, as I understand it. It is simply the form of the

21
Long Title—a Bill presented to the House as a Bill to consolidate the law with Amendments proposed by the Law Commission. Even if this Resolution were not on the Order Paper, and even if this procedure were not proposed, I understand the position to be that the House would be very gravely inhibited in its consideration of the Bill.
I therefore believe that we must pause to think where we are going with these anomalous procedures which are beginning to spring up. I realise that the Lord Chancellor has a great gusto for consolidation—having been at the receiving end for a couple of years I am well able to evaluate it—but while consolidation of the Statute Book has a very useful function, we must be very careful that we do not find ourselves legislating in the committee room without the proper political pressures which keep us all in order in this Chamber.
That being my view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could not have supported the Resolution had it been taken to a Division, but I take the opportunity now of adding these reservations, because I serve notice on the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that if a similar Resolution is moved during the next Session of Parliament he will have a little more trouble on his hands than he has now.
11.5 a.m.
The Attorney-General: I duly note the cautionary concluding words of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), but I should like at once to challenge his proposition that what is proposed in this Resolution and in relation to this Bill has simply not been thought through. That is not the case. It has been given the most careful consideration by the Law Commission and by my noble friend the Lord Chancellor in another place. There have been discussions about it in direct conversations between hon. Members on both sides and those concerned with these matters, and officials of the House have been involved and consulted. The most meticulous consideration has been given to the subject before it came here. But, as the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, this Resolution affects the present Session only, and it will be open to him to return to the topic next Session when a similar Resolution is moved.
22
This is a modest and useful experiment, and I am glad that a fair wind has been given to this application in regard to the only Bill which it is contemplated will be subject to the procedure this Session. I give that undertaking and assurance to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) if it will give him any comfort, as I understand it will. I may also give him the undertaking for which he asked, and which was given by my noble Friend in another place, that the amendments proposed by the Law Commission in this or any subsequent similar Bills will all be related to the consolidation. The proposed amendments will relate only to matters closely within the scope of the consolidation Bill then under consideration.
Complaint has been made that the Resolution is vague in its terms, and does not give sufficient guidance as to procedure, etc. to the Consolidation Committee, but perhaps I might remind the House that the original Motion is also silent as to how the Committee is to proceed.
Mr. Ronald Bell: That was the object of the 1949 Act.
The Attorney-General: I appreciate that it is dealt with in the context of that Act. But it is clear that the Joint Committee can deal with a Bill brought forward under these procedures as, indeed, with any other Bill within its proper scope.
I do not think that the Committee will have any difficulty in dealing with the matter. If it rejects a particular proposal of the Law Commission it will amend the relevant Clause, as it has power to do as the Committee to which the Bill has been referred by the House. I understand that the Joint Committee on the Highways Bill made several amendments without the benefit of express powers in its terms of reference, and I should have thought this to be an inherent power of a Committee to which a Bill is referred.
Mr. Graham Page: If the Joint Committee were presented with a Bill which contained recommendations for Amendments by the Law Commission and those Amendments altered the law, would the Committee under its present duties have to remove those Amendments from the

23
Bill, or report to the House that it had made new law? Is that the course it would take? Does it remove the Amendments from the Bill, or report to the House that it is, in fact, including new law into the Consolidation Bill?
The Attorney-General: The Committee would remove them from the Bill at that stage, and that would be the end of the matter. It has the power of exclusion and rejection, and would exercise that power in an appropriate case.
That is why I was somewhat surprised to hear the anxieties expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire South as to the inadequacy of the supervision by the Joint Consolidation Committee. It is very experienced in these matters and very astute to see that a "fast one" is not being pulled by any Executive, whatever the political party nature of the Executive of the day, and this is a valuable contribution which the Joint Select Committee has rendered throughout its existence.
The powers of the House to amend will follow the ordinary rules of order. The ambit of an amendment will be restricted in that, I am told, the authorities of the House will take the view that, with the Long Title as it is, they will not accept Amendments at large, but only those relating to the Law Commission's proposals, so there is that degree of limitation upon the power of the House when the matter comes before it.
Sir J. Hobson: What happens to a Bill which contains Amendments not proposed by the Law Commissioners, but put in by the Joint Committee? It will then be a Bill to consolidate the law, with Amendments, some proposed by the Law Commissions and some by the Joint Committee.
The Attorney-General: But any amendments placed in the Bill by the Joint Committee will, in turn, relate only to Amendments proposed by the Law Commission itself. It would not be open to the House to embark upon fresh matters. The restrictions of this procedure are undoubted. It would be open to the Committee, if it thought fit, to amend the Bill so as to reject any of the recommendations of the Law Commission, or give effect to them in a manner different from that proposed in the Bill.
24
When the Bill reaches the Floor of the House, it will again be within the competence of the House to review the decisions of the Committee and discuss Amendments designed to reject a recommendation which the Committee had accepted, accept a recommendation what the Committee had rejected, or give effect to the recommendation in a manner different from that proposed in the Bill. That will be the extent of the powers given to the House when a Bill comes back to it.
We shall see how the procedure operates. Certainly, there is no intention on the part of the Government to rough-ride the House in this matter. It is important that we should get on with the process of tidying up the state of the Statute Book and I am sure that no view will emerge from this discussion to suggest that the House of Commons will stand in the way of reasonable experiments of this kind designed to improve the state of the Statute Book.
Mr. Graham Page: I cannot understand that restriction on the powers of the House. How is it that the powers of the House are to be restricted to accepting an Amendment, rejecting an Amendment, or moving an Amendment within the recommendations? This is consolidation with Amendments and up to now the House has always been allowed to discuss any Amendments to a consolidation Bill which was consolidation with Amendments.
The Attorney-General: I have given the House the view which has been conveyed to me by the officials of the House, who have given the matter the most careful thought. The view which will be applied is that, with the Long Title as it is, the Table will not accept Amendments at large, but only those relating to the Law Commission's proposals. I cannot assist the House more than that. In view of the anxiety of hon. Members opposite that the Government are seeking powers to short-circuit Parliamentary procedure, I would have thought that that assurance would be reassuring. That is the view which is taken and that is the approach which is made in dealing with these matters.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Surely a limitation on the powers of the House is not a

25
safeguard to the House. It is the other way round. We would like the House to be fully competent to review a Bill. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that what will limit the powers of the House is the Long Title of the. Bill which, to come within this Motion, must be expressed to be a Bill to consolidate with recommendations? Is not that how the limitation will arise?
The Attorney-General: That is quite accurate. Accordingly, I hope that the House will give its support to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.15 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill reduces the period from 50 years to 30 years for which public records, subject to certain exceptions, are closed to public inspection. It is a commendably short Bill of two Clauses.
Clause 1 effects the reduction in the period during which the records are closed to the public. This is subject to the Lord Chancellor's power, under Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act, 1958, to prescribe shorter or longer periods of closure in certain cases. Clause 2 provides that the Bill will come into operation on 1st January, 1968.
The first Public Record Office Act was passed in 1838. It provided for the establishment of a Public Record Office to provide proper accommodation for the public records and to facilitate their free use by the public. The present Public Record Office in Chancery Lane was begun in 1851 and in the following year an Order in Council was made bringing the records of Government Departments within the scope of the Act. These, the House will not be surprised to know, grew substantially over the years.
26
In 1877, the volume of Departmental records which had been transferred to the Public Record Office was such that it was necessary to pass an Act in order to prevent the Public Record Office from being encumbered with documents of not sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office. That Act prescribed a procedure for the destruction of valueless records.
Before 1958, transfers of Departmental records which were not destroyed as valueless depended upon the arrangements made with individual Departments and upon mutual convenience. Access was at the discretion of Departments who were asked to open all records for public inspection down to whatever date they thought suitable and as nearly as possible without reserve.
The House will know that no formal records of Cabinet meetings were kept before 1916 when the Cabinet Secretariat was created. The Committee on Imperial Defence had come into existence in 1904, but none of its records was available to the public. In 1954, the Grigg Committee on Departmental Records recommended that Cabinet papers and Departmental records should become available to the public 50 years from their creation. In making this recommendation on Cabinet papers the Committee drew attention to the need to provide adequate safeguards against two things: first, premature publication of confidential information which could handicap current administration; and, secondly, the impairment of collective responsibility of the Government, or the responsibility of individual Ministers to Parliament for their own Departments.
In recommending the 50-year period for Departmental records, the Committee had in mind what it called the quality of un-selfconsciousness, which is regarded as a quality in a civil servant, but not necessarily an outstanding virtue among Members of this House. The Committee feared that that might be impaired if an official knew that what he wrote would be made available for public inspection during his lifetime. The Public Records Act, 1958, gave effect to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee. Section 5 provided for access to public records and subsection (1) provided that in the case of records to which

27
the public had previously not had access, they should not be available to it:
"… until they had been in existence for 50 years or such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to him to be primarily concerned, for the time being prescribe as respects any particular class of record."
Subsection (2) dealt with records obtained under conditions where their being open to public inspection might constitute a breach of faith. These records are to be opened to inspection only in special circumstances or under special conditions.
Finally, where records were created at different dates, Section 10(2) provided that, if these were kept together for administrative purposes, they would be treated as being created at the date of the last record on the file.
Lord Chancellors have made use of the power to shorten the 50-year period and have made available considerable numbers of public records before the elapse of the 50-year period. The most notable example of this was the release on 10th February, 1966, of all the records of the First World War up to 31st December, 1922.
Although the effect of the 1958 Act was to release a great quantity of records for public inspection, there was growing criticism of the 50-year rule. The study of recent history had attained full academic recognition, and was attracting great interest from the universities, and from the world at large. Many scholars of standing and repute were said to feel seriously hindered by the 50-year rule, and to consider that the whole area of scholarship had suffered as a result. There was also room for the view that, as a result, partial and biased accounts of our affairs gained currency, in which the British case went by default and which British historians were handicapped in correcting.
This view was expressed in the famous words of Lord Acton, who said:
"To keep one's archives barred against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies."
In 1954 the 50-year rule was accordingly considered again, and on that occasion by the Advisory Council of Public
28
Records, chaired by the Master of the Rolls. The Council recommended that the closed period should be reduced to 40 years.
However, after careful consideration the Government have decided to reduce the period to 30 years. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party both agreed with the proposal, which was in turn welcomed by the Advisory Council. This Bill gives effect to the proposal. As a result, from 1st January next, about 150,000 additional files will become available to the public and to historians and researchers. No doubt they will contain much that is of interest.
There is one other matter to which I should refer. The Grigg Committee recognised that it would not be possible for all records to be released at 50 years. Its object was to ensure that all records which it is practicable to open to the public after 50 years are available at that time. This has been the policy of successive Lord Chancellors when considering whether to prescribe periods longer than 50 years for any particular class of records.
Those for which longer periods have been prescribed fall into the following categories: firstly, those containing information about individuals whose disclosure would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants, such as criminal or prison records, records of courts-martial, records of suspected persons and certain police records; secondly, those containing information obtained with a pledge of confidence, for example, the census returns; thirdly, certain papers relating to Irish affairs; fourthly, certain exceptionally sensitive papers, which affect the security of the State.
Classes of records which have been closed for periods of longer than 50 years will remain closed for the period prescribed after the 30-year rule comes into force. In these matters the Lord Chancellor is advised by the Advisory Council on public records.
Mr. Michael Foot: Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House why it is there is this special provision about Irish affairs?

29
Why should there be a special protection in that instance?
The Attorney-General: There is a sensitive area in regard to Irish affairs which remains, and I do not think it would be prudent for me to pursue it on the Floor of the House. But there are papers which it would not be in the interests of this country to disclose.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made clear that it is not the intention of the Government to countenance any evasion of the 30-year rule through the Lord Chancellor's exercise of his power to prescribe a longer closed period. The same principle will apply to prescribing periods longer than 30 years as have applied for the prescription periods longer than 50 years. The Lord Chancellor in another place has told us of the kind of cases that he has in mind—confidential correspondence with or about British firms abroad, the disclosure of which might be harmful to our trade; comments by Ministers and officials on officials and persons abroad which could be exploited by hostile propagandists or used to make trouble for us, and foreign rulers or statesmen whose public careers have spanned a 30-year period.
With regard to the Government's proposals to extend the range of official histories to peace time, which is an interesting development, it has been agreed that the selection of topics for publication shall be referred to an all-party group of Privy Councillors. It is intended to consider not only political topics, but other topics of general interest, although free from acute party controversy. It is gratifying that in this sphere the proposals have received the support of all sides of the House, and I accordingly commend this Bill to the House.
11.29 a.m.
Sir John Hobson: The Attorney-General has said that this is an agreed Measure, and I am sure that it will have a general welcome, not only in the House but outside, and in particular from those who are interested in research into the history of recent times, particularly the history of Britain. I am glad that this is an agreed Measure, and that the Leaders of all parties have agreed on a topic such as this, when it is impossible to
30
determine over long periods of time whose interests are affected when the door of the Record Office is more widely open.
I have no doubt whatever that when the files for the additional 20 years have been looked at and are beginning to be investigated there will be as equal a pressure against the closed doors of 30 years as there has recently been over 50 years. It is inevitable. Historians will always want the doors of the Record Office open as widely as possible. I am certain that not many years will pass before pressures to shorten the period of 30 years will be as great as they were against 50 years. While I accept that 30 years is a reasonable period, if we get very much below that, the arguments against allowing inspection of documents on very recent history become that much stronger. The expectation of life nowadays is such that 30 years will, I hope, cover the lives of members on both Front Benches. The vast majority of us will be alive 30 years from now.
There is, as the Attorney-General said, the discretionary power of the Lord Chancellor not only to lengthen but to shorten the statutory period during which records may be examined. In every field and for every Department there is obviously a different interest. The 30 years is only the average flat rate. For the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, longer than the average period may be necessary on occasion. For other Departments, very much shorter periods may be possible. But the more one shortens the period, the greater the burden which will be put on the Lord Chancellor to consider with his Advisory Committee whether, in particular circumstances, there should be an extension of the statutory period.
I now raise a practical matter which is not the responsibility of the Attorney-General, but I hope that he will draw it to the attention of his Government colleagues who are responsible. I understand that when the Public Record Office is opened in the morning, there is a queue of people who wish to study the papers and that it is almost impossible for them to do any work. One has to be there by nine o'clock sharp in the morning to get a seat, and I understand that

31
even then one is lucky to get a seat. With the 30-year period, there will be even greater pressure on the limited accommodation available for students and writers. I hope that the Attorney-General's colleagues will match the extension of the period either by providing a temporary alternative place of work or improving the existing facilities for researchers and students so that they may conveniently work. It is no good opening up an enormous number of additional files if people cannot work on them.
With that plea to the Government to add to the benefits of the Bill by taking practical measures in that direction, I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Opposition.
11.33 a.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I support what has just been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) in urging the Government to take practical steps to improve facilities for the increased number of students who are likely to wish to take advantage of the Bill. That is an extremely important proposal which I am sure the Government will note.
I welcome the Bill. The original statement by the Prime Minister proposing that the period should be reduced from 50 to 30 years was made in response to a Question of mine. Therefore, I am extremely gratified that the Government are following the advice which they get from this quarter. This is one of those Measures which we like to welcome when we get the opportunity. It would be most churlish of me not to thank the Government for accepting the suggestion which some of us have made for a considerable time that there should be a review of the 50-year period, which was much too long. The Government's proposal is fairly good. It is true that there will be pressure for a still further reduction in the period. We shall have to see for a short period how well this reform works, and then we can judge whether a further reduction should be made.
I recognise that there are strong arguments for preventing the adoption of the American system. I do not think that it is a good idea that every discussion in the Cabinet should be open to immediate or very early investigation by the Press
32
and students, because that would make the processes of government almost impossible. Therefore, there have to be limitations, but they must be exercised with great care. That is why I give warning that, although we accept the Bill and are grateful for it, we must consider some of the restrictions very carefully.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, during his speech, about the restriction on Irish affairs. His reply was more cryptic than I expected. I do not know whether he was fully apprised of the restrictions which apply especially to Irish affairs, but what he said will arouse suspicions on the other side of the Irish Channel. I cannot understand why a special restriction should apply presumably to discussions on Irish affairs which went on in the Foreign Office and other quarters of the Government in the 1920s and 1930s. I should have thought that exactly the same principle should apply to any decisions made on important matters in Ireland as would apply to affairs in this country. Therefore, that is one of the restrictions which should be examined in Committee. It struck me as most odd that there should be special provision in the Bill guarding against the revelation of Irish affairs which took place 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
I hope that the Bill will have a very speedy passage and that the fullest advantage of it will be taken by students and others. I am particularly attracted by this Measure because in a very short time students will have available, for example, all the dealings of the Cabinet and the Foreign Office which have not been destroyed concerning Munich and the events leading up to it. All the documents referring to 1938 will soon become available. It is of great advantage that we shall be able to discover the truth about those events, even if we have to wait a little longer for the truth about such events as the Suez expedition of 1956 and other matters.
This is a move in the right direction. I therefore greatly welcome the support which the Government, and particularly, I believe, the Prime Minister, have given to this Measure.
11.38 a.m.
Mr. Maurice Orbach: My hon. Friend the Member for

33
Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has already dealt with the matters which I wished to raise, but I should like to take up his last point. He said that soon students will have available the documents from the Cabinet Office and elsewhere relating to the events which led up to Munich and those which came after Munich. I wonder whether that is correct. If I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General aright, he said that there might be restrictions on documents affecting leading personalities in other States which might have some effect on our relationship with those States. This seems to me as annoying as the restriction on documents concerning Irish affairs. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will assure us that there will not be any restrictions on documents relating to Munich. We certainly do not want there to be any restriction on documents about the Suez collusion for those who follow us.
I support what the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said about the Public Record Office. This leads to a lot of clandestine activity which we should abhor. A close relative of mine recently got his doctorate as a result of having available certain Cabinet documents which were not previously available. Because of the hours which would have to be spent waiting to get in the place, he had to make clandestine use of a mini-camera to get pictures of the relevant documents. I hope that this will not now be necessary.
More facilities should be made available in the Public Record Office and greater room should be provided. We should encourage students who are helping not only history but politicians by the work that they do for the future.
11.40 a.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I support the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about what is likely to happen to the Irish documents. The Attorney-General said that there was an unduly sensitive feeling in this connection, but I suggest that that sensitiveness applies to one section of the Irish community as at present constituted—perhaps to 11 hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite.
34
I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether, in future deliberations, he will regard it as of paramount importance that every consideration should be given to the publication of all the facts and circumstances relating to the arrest, imprisonment and subsequent execution of Sir Roger Casement. It is most important that the Irish people should be made aware, after such a lapse of time, of all the circumstances affecting that case.
11.41 a.m.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the welcome which the Bill has had from the House and I am glad to acknowledge the contribution to the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We look forward with excitement to the emergence from the pen of my hon. Friend and of other distinguished writers and historians of the fruits of their labours from the study of these recent documents.
My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) is that although a complete review of the Munich records has not yet been made the Foreign Office does not expect that there is anything specifically connected with the events of Munich which it would desire to withhold. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find this reassuring.
I should explain that documents relating to Irish affairs are not generally restricted. The only ones which are restricted are certain records dealing with what are commonly called "the troubles". Apart from that, there will be the disclosures of the kind which I have mentioned.
I entirely share the anxieties which have been expressed about the accommodation difficulties in the Record Office. Had it not been for our economic difficulties, we had hoped to be able to start an additional building last summer, but for the moment it has had to be postponed. I am, however, glad to tell the House that arrangements will be made, which, I think, will take effect shortly, for further places to be provided for 40 readers. That will give assistance in coping with the problem. It is vital that our history should be studied and should be known, and I am happy to be

35
associated with the Bill to make more of it available.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McBride.]
Committee Tomorrow.

ADVERTISEMENTS (HIRE PURCHASE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.43 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a pure consolidation Bill. The Joint Committee reported that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
11.44 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that the Attorney-General has been unfortunate enough not to get anything "on the nod" this morning, but a point or two arise on this Bill. It is a consolidation Bill which is entitled Advertisements (Hire Purchase), but it does not consolidate the law relating to advertisements and it does not consolidate the law relating to hire purchase. It consolidates the law relating, as the Long Title states,
"to the contents of advertisements displayed or issued in connection with hire-purchase or credit-sale."
It is rather an extract from the law than a consolidation of the law.
It is, I apprehend, for this House to consider whether it is expedient to consolidate the law in this way or to consolidate a small part of the law in this way. The Bill deals with the narrowest subject in what is, I think, the shortest Bill ever to be presented to the House as a consolidation Bill. Its purpose was admitted before the Joint Select Committee to be to tidy up a remaining part of a previous Act which dealt with several miscellaneous subjects.
There was on this subject the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957, which was a Private Member's Bill. That Act was amended in 1964 and 1965 by Bills dealing with hire purchase in
36
general. The present consolidation extracts the small subject of advertisements so far as they deal with hire purchase and credit sales from the general law of hire purchase. It is, therefore, questionable whether it is advisable to consolidate in this form.
The Bill does not seem to me to be of a form of consolidation with which we have dealt previously in debating consolidation Bills. It is rather a desolidation than a consolidation. Consolidation should not be merely the tidying up of an amended Statute. The purpose should surely be to provide certainty, clarity and convenience in the statement of the law: certainty by those who draft a consolidation Bill investigating what is and what is not now the law; clarity by a restatement of the law in appropriate words; and convenience by one subject being placed within one Statute.
The Bill certainly gives certainty in a small area, but it does not give clarity by any means in repeating the shocking formula which is contained in Part III of Schedule 1. We might, perhaps, have had a reform of the law before consolidating it in that form of almost unintelligible formula. I question whether it is convenient to consolidate in small parcels or, having regard to the subject matter of the Bill, in small instalments. If this were eventually to be one chapter in a larger volume or one part in a larger consolidation Bill dealing with either the whole subject of advertisements or the whole subject of hire purchase, it might have served a useful purpose, but we are given no understanding that that is the intention. This consolidation Bill is, apparently, to stand on its own.
I wish to record a warning that we may be creating more difficulties by small pieces of consolidation of this sort. We may be putting more statutes on the Statute Book in this way unless there is the intention eventually to consolidate the consolidating Measures in one large statute.
11.50 a.m.
The Attorney-General: I take note of the cautionary words of the hon. Gentleman. This is admittedly a very narrow piece of consolidation, but it was thought helpful and useful to introduce it. The idea, as was indicated to the Joint Consolidation Committee, is to get rid eventually of the whole of the 1964 Act,

37
which consisted of piecemeal amendments of the existing law relating to hire purchase and the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act which dealt with the fraudulent disposal of vehicles which were on hire purchase.
The main part of the law was consolidated in the two Acts referred to in the Note to the Bill—that is to say, the Hire Purchase Act, 1965, for England and Wales, and the corresponding Measure for Scotland. Now, to get rid of another part, we are consolidating this branch of the law. As both the hon. Gentlemen and I have said, this is a small branch of the law, but the combination of the 1957 Act as amended by the 1964 Act is very difficult to follow because it consists to a large extent of piecemeal verbal amendments.
I think, therefore, that the Bill does serve some purpose, although it is a little one. I regret that we have had to reproduce the formula in respect of which the Chairman of the Committee used the phrase "horrible". One of these days we shall get around to dealing with that, also.
Mr. Graham Page: If the Law Commission had been operating under the Resolution we discussed earlier this morning, it might have produced for us a better formula.
The Attorney-General: That may well be so, but the Law Commission is looking at the law of hire purchase now and we must look forward to the day when there will be full scale reform and restatement of the law. In the meantime, I commend this limited Measure to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McBride.]
Committee Tomorrow.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.53 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a pure consolidation Measure and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Graham Page: I apologise again that the hon. Gentleman cannot get this Measure "on the nod". This is a consolidation Bill relating to a section of law in Scotland and we are always faced in this House with the problem that some of our Bills relate to Scotland only, some to England and Wales only, and some to the United Kingdom. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a policy on consolidation to extract from United Kingdom laws the law relating to Scotland and to consolidate that separately, because it presents difficulties in form, as we see in this Bill.
I wish only to refer to the form resulting from this type of consolidation and not to the merits of the Bill in any way. I call attention to Schedule 3, which becomes a Schedule by reason of Clause 21, which says:
"The enactments mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act so far as relating to Scotland are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule."
It is clear enough there that one is dealing only with this in so far as it relates to Scotland.
But not everyone will take the precaution of reading that Clause first. They will turn merely to the repeal Schedule. It is true that there is a marginal note there referring back to Clause 21, but within the Schedule itself one comes across these items:
"The Legal Aid Act 1960."
Against that, in the next column, are the words, "The whole Act". Later comes:
"The Legal Aid Act 1964"
and against that, in the next column, are also the words: "The whole Act."
I must say that, if I had turned to the Bill and read that Schedule, I would have understood from those words that the whole of both of those Acts were being

39
repealed. I do not think that I should quickly have thought of turning to Clause 21, thus seeing that they are, in fact, being repealed in relation to Scotland. Surely a form could be used within the Schedule itself, even if it is a matter of repeating words which appear in the text of the Bill, to warn the reader against this, to show that the extent of the repeal is the whole Act in so far as it relates to Scotland.
I acknowledge that this would be repetition but what we are always doing in consolidation Bills, I understood, is to make the law convenient for reference, to combine it in one Statute so that it is convenient to the practitioner and has clarity and certainty. We should, therefore, try even at the expense of spending a few more words, to make it clear that, when a Schedule says that the whole of an Act is repealed, and the Bill we are talking about relates only to Scotland, these limiting words should be placed against that item in the Schedule.
11.56 a.m.
Mr. Millan: I think that as careful and assiduous a reader of legislation as the hon. Gentleman is not likely to be misled by the terms of the Schedule, but I take the point he has made that perhaps on future occasions the draftng might be improved in that respect. I myself believe that the drafting is adequate here, but perhaps in subsequent instances, where we are consolidating Scottish bits of United Kingdom legislation, it might be looked at by those responsible. I shall certainly draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to their attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McBride.]
Committee Tomorrow.

BERMUDA CONSTITUTION BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

BERMUDA CONSTITUTION BILL

  Clause 1.—(POWER TO PROVIDE BY ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF BERMUDA.)
  11.57 a.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, at end to insert:
  Provided that without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the registration of electors in Bermuda and for the law in regard to the disqualification of candidates for election to the House of Assembly.
  I do not want to go back on what I said on Second Reading but I want to refer to one or two things I said then because they tie up with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when she replied to the debate. The most important point to which I wish again to direct the attention of the Committee is the method of the registration of electors.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that the terms of reference given to Mr. Hucks, who was the specialist sent out to Bermuda to try to decide on the best method of registration, were to improve upon the present method rather than to try and change it to the system of automatic registration of electors that we have.
  But the point is that he was sent out because of the concern which had been expressed by the P.L.P. in Bermuda about the present method of registration. It claimed that it could not be made to work in the interests of the majority. It was, therefore, the view and the expressed concern of the P.L.P. that a change or investigation into the possibility of a change should take place in order to bring the method of registration into line with that of the British method.
  Mr. Hucks was certainly sent to improve on the present method and he made suggestions as to how it could be improved in order to make it possible for more people to be registered. But it will not, of course, make it easier for those with whom we are directly concerned to get registered.

  41
  12 noon.
  I emphasise the important differences between an automatic system of registration and voluntary system of registration. In this country we have indulged in an automatic system of registration. This is something that is carried out by authority. People are encouraged to register. Forms are sent to them and, if they do not register as an elector, somebody goes to see them and tries to help them register by explaining how to fill in the form and so forth. The fact that penalties for not going on the electoral register still exist, although they may not be used, shows that it is regarded as a right for everyone who can to exercise their vote and to be eligible to exercise their vote.
  With a voluntary system of registration it is left with the individual. The individual has to make the effort and, as I showed last week, there is some doubt—I think this is borne out by the figures—whether certain sections of the community in Bermuda, namely, the coloured population, are benefiting from this method of registration.
  Last week the Minister said:
  "The figures given in the P.L.P. Memorandum to the Conference show that the two parishes with the smallest number of registered voters, according to the 1966 Register, are Southampton and Hamilton, both of which have coloured majorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June 1966, Vol. 748, c. 1060.]
  This bears out my point. I agree with my right hon. Friend when she said that one does not want this to become a black and white issue. One can in circumstances substitute class for colour, because much of the colour clash is a class clash, and this is what is taking place in Bermuda and in many other parts of the world.
  In the two parishes with the smallest number of registered voters with coloured majorities the method of registration militates against the coloured majority or those people who are in a lower social class. The difficulties which they face in trying to register are something that ought to concern us and I would be very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's comments.
  The other important point which was commented on last week and on which we want further clarification relates to candidates, the people eligible to stand. Last week I mentioned a school teacher
  42
  who voted Conservative when in England, but who had to resign his job as a teacher in Bermuda before he could stand as a candidate. I accept the difficulty that a small country like Bermuda is in, just as one has difficulties here, relating to people employed by a local authority standing for public office. We have this difficulty with our councils where certain people are not eligible to stand, just as certain people are not eligible to stand for Parliament because of the position that they occupy. However, there is a great difference here. In a very small country where the majority of the public servants serve Parliament or are directly connected with Parliament and, therefore, are disqualified from standing as candidates, this tends to militate against a certain class or section of the community.
  I am not concerned with colour; I am not particularly concerned with class. I am concerned that certain people are not eligible to stand as candidates. Large sections of people who would be representative of certain interests in Bermuda—bus drivers, pilots, teachers and so forth—are not eligible to stand as candidates. It seems very odd that the director of a bank, who has a far greater connection with the Assembly in Bermuda than perhaps a bus driver would have, can not only stand, but could, under the present arrangements, become a Minister, whereas a bus driver cannot even stand as a candidate.
  With all these difficulties, which my right hon Friend referred to last week, I should have thought that there was room for amending at least that part of the Constitution which makes it impossible for a person even to stand as a candidate while, for example, he is a bus driver. It may be that if he becomes elected he would be expected to resign from office, but not to be able to stand as a candidate is something which I think should be looked into.
  This ties up with the whole question of the payment of members. If one is to have a truly representative Assembly, as we have here, one has to make it financially possible for people from all sections of the community and all classes, irrespective of colour, to be eligible to stand as public representatives.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think the hon. Lady is going outside the terms of the Amendment in talking about payment.
  Miss Lestor: The point is that eligibility for candidature in some sense has a connection with payment. If one is not paid for office then certain people, by virtue of financial difficulties, are disqualified from standing. I had not intended to go outside the terms of the Amendment.
  The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Lady may be correct. However, we are not concerned with voluntary disqualification. We are now concerned with what legal disqualification there may be.
  Miss Lestor: Many of us who have followed the whole history of the development of Bermuda fairly closely, and particularly the discussions which took place at the Constitutional Conference and the debate which took place here in the last week or so, are very concerned that, whatever Constitution is adopted in Bermuda, it should not be seen to militate against the interests of people either in the method by which they can register in order to vote, because that will determine to some extent who is elected, or against those people who could represent the interests of large sections of the community being disqualified from standing for candidature simply because of the jobs that they hold. These are the two points mentioned in the Amendment which I hope my right hon. Friend will accept.
  Mr. James Johnson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). Perhaps because of her sex she made a moving appeal, but she is also a Socialist and I want to enlarge somewhat the appeal which she made so well. I also wish to ask a few questions of the Minister.
  I must apologise for not being here on Second Reading. I was overseas. I did not, therefore, hear my hon. Friend's winding-up speech, but I have looked very carefully at the OFFICIAL REPORT, so I am well acquainted with what she said and the answers she gave to some of the questions asked on that occasion and which were put in much the same
  44
  form by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that it was difficult under the voluntary system for the less happy members of our society—coloured people perhaps, those with little education, those with a long difficult manual task working at the docks in Bermuda or long hours on the buses—to make sure that they had a chance to vote by going along on the first stage and making sure that they were registered to vote.
  It is a very important argument, but, for the life of me, I cannot see why we could not have what is loosely termed the English system. It is my understanding that when Mr. Hucks was chosen it was understood that he would go out and look at the possibilities of having this Colony register on our basis. I may be told later by the Minister that I am asking for the system of an advanced sophisticated urban society, perhaps like London—even my own constituency. I may be told that this is not a territory like Kenya or a similar former Colony with a similar system some years ago at this stage of its evolution. Other examples would be Zanzibar or Somalia.
  In former Colonies like Kenya there were enormous areas where large numbers of people lived in tribal societies, unable to speak English and often not even understanding the alphabet in their stage of social, economic and cultural development. I have not been to the delightful island of Bermuda, but I am told that that is not the situation there. Hon. Members opposite, notably the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), have spoken of the wonderful economy of Bermuda and have told me how wealthy and advanced the people there are, nothing like the backward, simple, primitive societies of Africa with which one may be more familiar. If so, the argument that there cannot be a more advanced system of registration falls to the ground. Another potential snag is missing. In Africa, where people live in the bush, they often do not have postal addresses, but that is not the case in Bermuda where, I am told, every citizen can be located.
  The delegates of the Progressive Labour Party made a great impression upon me. I thought that they were good

  45
  political material, and that view is reinforced by their memorandum. I am told that in Bermuda the manual working-class people do not come forward under this voluntary system in sufficient numbers to approach the 100 per cent. registration which we would have by the English method. This is one of the difficulties which we must attempt to eliminate. There must be no bar to anyone, whatever his job, income, social or cultural position, who wants to cast his vote. People sometimes forget to register—even hon. Members here sometimes forget to fill in their Income Tax forms—and it must be our object, particularly hon. Members on this side of the Committee, to see that the maximum number gets to the poll.
  Bluntly, I have always supported the movement of the masses, the dispossessed, the have-nots, the forgotten people, and they must not be electorally handicapped in any way. They are the politically inarticulate, the less fortunate, whom we must help. There must be no hindrance in the way of their being able to vote. In this somewhat unusual Colony, people are much more advanced than was the case in other parts of the old-fashioned Empire which we used to know many years ago.
  I have very carefully read my hon. Friend's Second Reading speech. Few of my hon. Friends are happy about the Bill and I wonder whether the Minister herself is entirely happy about it. Knowing her as I do, I think that it might not be fair to ask. I am sure that she would like to get the best possible deal for the people of Bermuda.
  12.15 p.m.
  On 19th June, my hon. Friend's main argument on this topic of registration and qualification for candidates and the voluntary system appeared to be that in the circumstances this was an advance on the old system. I suppose that it is. I told her predecessor many months ago that the last Constitution dated back to 1620, so there is no need to labour the argument about there being an advance. We were told that this side of the Committee could support the Constitution, with all its snags of registration, at least for an interim period. How long that period will be, I do not know. I gather that there are to be elections in mid-1968. This was sup-
  46
  posed to be a holding operation. I do not wish to be unfair, but when we were in opposition during the 1950s we constantly heard this argument about an interim period and a holding operation.
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Constitution. The Amendment deals with two factors—registration and disqualification. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now relate his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. Johnson: I was about to quote from the P.L.P. memorandum which is germane to this argument and which describes the system as defective and penalising the working-class electorate, but, in view of what you have said, Mr. Irving, I will not do so.
  It gives some interesting percentages of potential electorates. For example, in Appendix I it says that only 61 per cent. of potential electors were registered in Pembroke, North, which contains one-third of the coloured vote of the Colony. That means that 40 per cent. of that one-third will be lost. This is also said to be the case in the smaller constituency of Hamilton, East, where coloured voters are in the majority. I will not weary the Committee with more figures, but there is no denying the P.L.P.'s statement that under the voluntary system nothing like the largest possible number will vote in the elections of mid-1968. Perhaps I shall be able to enlarge on that subject later.
  In column 1056, on 19th June, the hon. Lady said that it was necessary to be very clear, and proceeded to "shoot down" the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). But, if clarity is necessary, how can she, as she did, say that top civil servants in this country are not allowed to stand for Parliament, and then say that they should, by definition, not be allowed to stand in Bermuda?
  The other matter of clarity was to do with N.A.L.G.O. We were told that local government officers here were not allowed to stand for municipal office. Where is the analogy between a local government officer and a worker on the docks?
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): On that point, I was not seeking to argue

  47
  particularly the merits of the case. I was merely refuting an allegation made by one of my hon. Friends that anyone could stand in this country.
  Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend went on to say:
  "In such a country as Bermuda, and in a number of dependent ories and new independencies, almost it the public service work is carried out by direct employees of the Government and not by local authority employees. It looks as though the principle in this country that civil servants may not stand for election to the House of Commons is bound to extend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1056.]
  However, my hon. Friend went on, a little later, to give us a glimmer of hope for the future by saying that there was a case for considering whether it might be possible to work out a way of changing the system. Because of that she said, the Bermuda Select Committee was set up.
  I have had a look at this Committee. If the two Houses elected at the last elections, on most unfair franchises, now have the majority—and this Committee is set up by that majority—it is understandable that the Committee will be heavily weighted in favour of those who wish to maintain the status quo.
  It has always been our experience in overseas colonial territories that those who have the power hang on to it. I will not go on to talk about white settler countries in Africa, particularly one that is giving us trouble north of the Limpopo, but those in power take some shifting. It is understandable that they would attempt to use any lever or mechanism that they can to maintain themselves in power. We asked about the meeting of the U.B.P. and the Opposition party, the P.L.P., who were to consider whether it would be possible to work out a way of changing the system.
  We asked about the change of registration and qualifications and were told that there was some hope of something being done. I understand that the majority party, the U.B.P., which forms the dominant segment of the Select Committee, has turned down the P.L.P.'s efforts to get a more lawful and decent set-up. If this is so, and my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, then we are back to where we started, with all
  48
  the old snags and powers to which we object.
  Would my sh. Friend please look at this again? Last week, defending the status quo she chided my hon. Friends by saying:
  "If my hon. Friends are prepared to say that Bermuda should not advance any degree whatsoever along the road to self-government …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1057.]
  Then she issued a caveat, about the Colony being directly ruled by the House of Commons and civil servants, and asked them to say whether this was what they wanted.
  I do not say this. I do not want this Chamber telling people in Bermuda how to manage every jot and tittle, but I do suggest, at this early stage of colonial evolution, after the elections, which followed the ancient Constitution of 1620, that there is a case for a little more invigilation by Westminster, a little more checking of what is happening behind the scenes in Bermuda by the majority party. Both my hon. Friend and I know the history of the masses, and how difficult it is for them to get on top. I have been told that in the Bahamas the Opposition did not get on top. I will not go any further, however, because I see you nodding, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I was not indicating anything to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were nodding me down.
  May I ask the Minister to look again at the answer she gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), when he asked about Mr. Hucks' job, and what he would do when he went out to the Colony? My hon. Friend asked about the choice of expert to visit the Colony. I thought that a good deal of his argument was sound and that the Minister dismissed him fairly quickly, by saying that Mr. Hucks had been sent to Mauritius and St. Vincent, and in her opinion was the best possible person.
  I am sure that he made a good job and he suggested that there should be more changes to put more voters on the register. I hope that this is so, but how many more? We were told earlier that

  49
  if, in the past, only 60 per cent. of those eligible had registered, there would now be about 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of coloured voters in Pembroke, West by this lime.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Mr. Hucks' report says that with the matters which he has now recommended we can look forward to a system entitling at least 70 per cent. of the population to vote. With the improvements which he has recommended to the present system, the franchise has been extended from 64 per cent. to 70 per cent. Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a good thing?
  Mrs. Hart: The average number of electors registered in 1963, according to the P.L.P. Report, was 75 per cent.
  Mr. Johnson: I accept the statistics given by both the Minister and my hon. Friend. Without talking in detail about figures it is possible to have a 75 per cent. figure in the territory—
  It being half-past Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  RATE REBATE (MRS. DOROTHY DEACON)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the House back from the sunny isles of Bermuda to a problem much nearer home in the lovely Yorkshire resort of Whitby. The problem relates to Mrs. Dorothy Deacon, of Ruswarp.
  This is a case which must command the sympathy of us all, but it goes wider than being an individual case. I think that there is a general principle involved which can affect many willing and warmhearted people who are prepared to take foster children and give them the love, affection and feeling of security to which all children have a right. In doing this service, Mrs. Deacon and others like her are fulfilling a very worth-while
  50
  purpose for the community. It is a service which involves in no sense a measure of financial profit, because most local authorities which send children to foster parents make quite sure that the monetary reimbursement is only such as will cover expenses. Were it more than that, there would always be the danger that the wrong type of people would be encouraged to seek foster children. It appears that, far from seeking profit, people like Mrs. Deacon might restrict their right to a rate rebate.
  In 1966 the Rating Act was passed under which, in certain circumstances, people with a very small income are entitled to seek a rate rebate from the local authority. Mrs. Deacon is a young widow, living on a small pension. To quote her words,
  "When my husband died I decided that I would like to take in a foster daughter for company as I had no children. I figured she would have a home and a mother and I would have a companion. Since then I have taken two other little girls in as foster daughters. Their ages are now 12, 6 and 2 years.
  One of them came from the North Riding of Yorkshire and the other two from Dr. Barnardo's.
  Last September, Mrs. Deacon applied to the Whitby Urban District Council for a rate rebate because of the smallness of her income. I attach no blame to the Whitby Urban District Council, because it would act, as I have always assumed, on instructions from the Ministry about how it should operate the Act. The urban district council told her that in calculating her personal income for the purposes of rebate she had to include the money which she received for the three children from the North Riding and Dr. Barnardo's as being part of her income.
  On 27th October last, I first wrote to the Minister about this problem. Because of the eight months which have elapsed since, and knowing the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to be a man of exceeding good will and that he would be helpful if he could, I felt that as long as I did not have a direct denial I could hold out some hope that Mrs. Deacon's case would be reviewed favourably. Time went on, and I had a feeling, perhaps quote erroneously, that the recess would be with us before I received a positive answer. I therefore put down the matter for debate on the Adjournment.

  51
  Having put it down on 15th June, I received a very full letter from the Parliamentary Secretary dated 22nd June. I am grateful for that letter—not that it gives me any help or encouragement, but at least it clarifies some of the issues. Having tried to do my homework on the Rating Act and the debate which took place at that time, I came to the conclusion that there were certain passages in the Act which were difficult to interpret. I felt that perhaps the Ministry was also finding some difficulty in interpreting it.
  First, there is the problem of the definition of the word "income". The Act does not help us as there is no definition in it. If one goes further into the matter and looks through the debates in Committee, one discovers that this point was debated, and the Minister said that the word "income" come be taken to mean "that which comes in". Therefore, we have to accept that anything which comes in to Mrs. Deacon's household directly must be regarded as income.
  But let us consider what the payments from the North Riding consist of. I have a letter from the North Riding County Council, saying:
  "I write to advise you that the boarding out allowances payable to Mrs. Deacon are paid to ensure that the child is fed, clothed and given pocket money".
  Here we have a widow, living on a very small income, who goes to the local authority to seek a reduction in her rates by way of rebate because of the smallness of her income. Let us assume that she does not have her foster children. She is entitled to such rebate as the Act allows. She takes in foster children from the local authority which gives money to her each week and quarterly to cover the food which the children eat, the clothing which the children use and the pocket money which the children require.
  It is to be noted that not a penny is for rent or rates; the money is merely for food, clothing and pocket money. Mrs. Deacon had a certain income for herself and to keep the house going before she took in the foster children, and she still has that same income for herself and the house. Yet, although she is no better off herself, the rebate to which she was formerly entitled is now restricted because she receives money which is spent not on herself but on the foster children for
  52
  whom she is caring. I believe that that is unjust.
  Section 7(3, a) of the Rating Act, 1966 says that:
  "any income by way of payments in respect of living accommodation or board made by any person residing or usually resident in the relevant premises within the meaning of Section 6(4) of this Act …"
  is to be disregarded. I puzzled over that paragraph for a long time. I should have thought that it was open to the interpretation that "within the meaning of Section 6(4)" refers to the relevant premises and not to the person residing there, and that therefore a local authority would be justified in disregarding board and residence in respect of any person.
  I am fully aware that Section 6(4) says that persons residing or usually resident in the premises shall include persons:
  "… (apart from any child or children) …".
  But we are talking about persons living in the relevant premises according to Section 6(4). I therefore believe that it could well have been interpreted as meaning that it was proper to disregard any of the sums paid to Mrs. Deacon in respect of the foster children for their food and lodging.
  However, if that is not accepted, we should then consider the size of Mrs. Deacon's allowable income. She is entitled to an increase in the Act of £39 each half year in respect of each child. According to the letter from the Minister, the Ministry regard the children as being in Mrs. Deacon's care and therefore consider that the limit of her allowable income is £208 every six months for Mrs. Deacon herself plus £39 for each child.
  It seems to me that if he finds that the present limits are unsatisfactory the Minister could make an order varying the sum of £39. In his letter the Minister said that there is no power to make such an order in relation to foster children only. But I should have thought that it was possible under the terms of the Act to alter the limit to £X, or such sum as may be received in respect of a foster child from a local authority or approved society for the child's maintenance. That puts the matter in a different way, but I believe, subject to correction, that it puts it in such a way as can be regarded as being within the powers of the Act.
  This is a matter of wider importance than the case of Mrs. Deacon. People

  53
  in her circumstances, widowed and needing companionship and a sense of fulfilment, should be encouraged to take on the service of looking after children in this way. Anything that is done to discourage them or make life harder for them, as the Act seems to do in this case, performs a disservice to the community.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider every possible aspect of such cases. I understand that, as far as he knows, there are not many. But I have found one, and there may be others. A service such as Mrs. Deacon performs should be encouraged, and I hope that the Minister can find a way round the problem. If that is found impossible, I hope that the the attention of local authorities and organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's will be drawn to this debate and the problem that arises from it, and that as a result they may themselves supply additional funds to people like Mrs. Deacon to offset any disadvantage that may arise because of the working of the Rating Act, 1966.
  12.46 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The lot of the reformer is very awkward, and his path is very thorny. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) described the brutal, callous, behaviour of my right hon. Friend in issuing his instructions to the local authority that it was to offer no rebate, and rubbing his hands with glee at the thought that an unfortunate foster mother was to be discouraged from taking a child. Anybody less erudite than yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have thought that the rate rebate was a privilege which had long been available to ratepayers. Listening to the hon. Member, nobody would have thought that it was introduced by this Government only just over a year ago, and that it was the first time that any kind of rebate and help of this sort had been available.
  No instructions are issued from the Ministry. The law is the law, and the Rating Act is to be interpreted by local authorities as they think fit. From time to time we issue suggestions or hints on what we think might be the interpretation. On the whole, they are in the nature of encouraging local authorities to adopt a liberal interpretation towards the
  54
  Act rather than a very restricted one. But if they do not make such an interpretation, we cannot compel them to do so. Having said that, I should make it clear that the interpretation given by the hon. Member is the correct interpretation as I see it, and I think that in this case the Act was interpreted correctly.
  The hon. Member made the very fair point that it took me a long time to answer his letter in a helpful form, and that by an extraordinary coincidence a long answer emerged just as he put down the subject for an Adjournment debate. It is not completely the case that we were sitting on it and trying to avoid answering. We wanted to take the hon. Member's point seriously. Other points have been raised by local authorities in a comparable sphere and we were examining them and having a thorough look at the legal position. That was part of the reason for the delay.
  The broad principles of the rebate scheme are that it is meant to be operated in a very simple form, and not to be a complicated exercise like Income Tax, in which there must be a hierarchy of highly technical experts assessing income, appeals made to Income Tax Commissioners, and eventually cases going to the House of Lords.
  When we asked local authorities to administer the rebate scheme we were certain that we had to make it simple, so that, in broad terms, people with low incomes got rebates while those with high incomes did not. As the hon. Gentleman said, "income" was not defined, but it is broadly what comes in and it is in that form that the local authorities understand the position.
  The hon. Member is an expert in cost accounting. If we had tried to have a complicated system so that every foster mother or other person of that kind with a small undertaking—"business" would be the wrong word—which resulted in money coming in could have that money disregarded, there would have to be accounts and complications about how much money had been spent on the children's clothing and so on, and once we had a system like that, it would not be workable by the local authorities and it would become much more difficult and expensive. We tried to get a system which would be easily understood and simple to administer.

  55
  It is true that difficulties arise in connection with disregards. The hon. Member said that this was a very good example of an instance in which a disregard ought to apply. However, there have been other similar criticisms and we have had to stick to saying that income of any kind had to be counted before the calculations could be made. A foster child is treated exactly like any other child and the income in respect of that child is added to the parents' income. That means that the 30s. a week allowance for a foster child is credited to the reckonable income.
  The fact that rates are paid is a disincentive only at certain points in the calculation. If the income of the foster parents is low, the extra 30s. allowance will not prevent a rebate from being allowed. The trouble arises only where the income before the addition of the allowance is fairly large. In our inquiries to date we have heard of only two county councils which have raised the matter with the C.C.A. This case did not arise through Dr. Barnardo's, but through the hon. Member himself, and as far as I am aware Dr. Barnardo's does not know of any other case. It has not made representations to us about other cases, which seems to imply that this is not a very large problem, or a severe handicap on the boarding-out of children. We have discussed the problem with the Home Office, but it sees no ground for making a change.
  The hon. Member fairly argued that the income limits could be altered and he pointed out that that could be done by Order. I am advised that no way could be found to do that piecemeal. The change would have to be made right across the board. We have heard of only three of these cases, which shows that it is a very small problem, and there is no suggestion of hardship. If we started to pick out individual cases, my visits to this Box to explain why one application
  56
  had been rejected when another had been accepted would become very frequent.
  As a result of taking three children, Mrs. Deacon lost the rebate. That means that if Dr. Barnardo's increased her allowance by 2s. 3d. a week in respect of each child, she would be no worse off. That is the size of the problem. Mrs. Deacon clearly does this work because she loves children. She is irritated, as we all would be, by this rebate position and she does not unnecessarily want to lose some rebate. We would all share that view, but I want to make it plain that this is not a matter of a crippling burden which would make one want to abandon the children.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I understand that she is getting an increase of 4s. from Dr. Barnardo's, but that is because of the rise in the cost of living.
  Mr. MacColl: I was not dealing with the cost of living. I was saying that if there were a general feeling among boarding-out authorities that the effect of rates was so high that it was necessary to make a balancing additional payment when the rebate was lost, it would not be a very large amount, because even the highest rebate for an average family in most cases would not be more than £1 a week. We are not dealing with large sums, and when there are several children, the amount involved is very small when spread over each child.
  While I appreciate the hon. Member's argument, it would not be possible to pick out these cases for special treatment. We are doing what boarding out is supposed to do, which is for councils to treat the families concerned exactly as other families. Whether a further allowance should be made is a matter for the boarding-out authority and not for the rating authority and not for changes in the legislation.
  The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
  Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Retirement and Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she now has for an increase in National Insurance retirement pensions.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to announce a further increase in the basic scale of the retirement pension.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living since the last adjustment of allowances for pensioners and widows, she will raise the level of these allowances.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Social Security when it is proposed to increase the basic retirement pension.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to increase retirement pensions.
    The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I would refer the hon. Members to the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill published on Wednesday, 21st June, and the statement I made on that day.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that Bill and that statement perpetuate the wholly unsatisfactory policy of universal benefit; and that the future structure of any compassionate policy for the relief of poverty must provide a far greater degree of selectivity, as advanced by the Economist and the Observer this weekend?
    Miss Herbison: It may be that the Economist and the Observer have advanced that idea, but I think that they have misunderstood the nature of the provisions that are being made. These are flat-rate benefits for people who have contributed, and in the debate next week the hon. Member's own Shadow Cabinet might be able to tell us what they would
    58
    do. In other fields, full selectivity is possible, and we want to see it.
    Mr. Hastings: But does not the right hon. Lady realise that this indiscriminate hand-out makes no long-term contribution whatever to real poverty? Why does she not try to answer my hon. Friend's question?
    Miss Herbison: I answer it in the same way. Does one want to make less provision for people who are sick and for people who are unemployed? That is not what the new provisions do. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a survey showed that 81 per cent. of all single women retirement pensioners, and they are in the majority, were either under supplementary benefit level or just a £1 or less above it?
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side believe that the universal increase as announced last week is well justified? Will pensioners who receive a supplementary benefit get the average increase of 10s. and 16s.?
    Miss Herbison: Together with what those receiving supplementary pension got in November, what they will get this time will give them roughly the same increase as other pensioners have had since March 1965.
    Dr. Gray: When looking at the situation of widows, will the Minister look also at the situation of unmarried mothers and see whether they cannot be treated on exactly the same basis?
    Miss Herbison: We are considering all these matters under the general review; but unmarried mothers are very often in a better position than the father who is unemployed or is under the wage stop, since the wage stop does not apply to unmarried mothers.
    Mr. Dean: As the Minister knows, we welcome these increases in general, but does she agree that the total net cost is £220 million a year and that this will be met out of the contributions and taxation of those who are working? In view of that fact, how does she justify 10s. for the retired millionaire and 5s. for those people who have modest incomes?
    Miss Herbison: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of 10s. for the retired millionaire I wish that he, too, would read the

    59
    report of the survey that we made into the circumstances of retirement pensioners, where he would find that the number is very small indeed. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that perhaps 6 million old people should be a means-tested before they get any increase, it is not a suggestion that I would accept.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security if she will now take steps to enable men and women over pensionable age to receive their full pension irrespective of any other income.
    Miss Herbison: No, Sir. Only earnings at a level inconsistent with retirement are taken into account, and this is necessary to support the retirement condition for men under 70 and women under 65.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great needs is to increase the gross national product and that this proposal would help by attracting back to work many pensionable men and women and would, at the same time, meet part of the cost of the concession?
    Miss Herbison: From all our inquiries, we do not believe that what my hon. Friend says would be the result of abolishing the earnings rule. When one takes into account the fact that it would take about £110 million to abolish the rule, I have priorities which are much more important than the abolition of the earnings rule.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the main principle should be that people should retire from work when they reach retirement age?
    Miss Herbison: People have the choice of retiring from work when they reach retirement age. Only on 5th June last we increased the amount that could be earned under the earnings rule in order to give something extra for those who decide to continue to work. But another point we have to keep in mind is that many people who would be willing to work after 65 cannot find work, and many others are not able to work. It would be quite wrong to use that £110 million for those who are working.

    Pensions and Index of Earnings
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security what plans she now has for relating pensions to the index of average earnings of all employees calculated by the Ministry of Labour.
    Miss Herbison: Changes in the level of earnings are one of several factors taken into account in determining the level of pensions. The subject falls to be considered as part of our review of social security, and I cannot anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the help she is giving to the pensioners has kindled a flame not only in my heart but in the hearts of other people all over the country? Will she now assure the House that in any arrangement or system pensioners should be given at least a fair share of the increased growth we all expect during the next few years?
    Miss Herbison: I hope that that will certainly be the policy of the Government. My hon. Friend will possibly be aware that the increase in March, 1965, and the proposed increase are both more than would be needed to keep the pension in line with average earnings.
    Mr. Ben Whitaker: Could not my right hon. Friend devise an index for the cost of living that would be related to the average pensioner's budget? Is she aware that whereas the cost of living has risen by some 8 per cent. since the last increase in pensions, it has risen 36 per cent. since the last increase in family allowances was given? Can she say when she expects to implement Clause 5?
    Miss Herbison: The last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, but if he cares to put down a Question I shall be very happy to answer it. It would not be easy to devise a special index for old people. I prefer old people to have their share of any increase in wealth, and that is what we have done with these two increases.

    Rate Relief (Scotland)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware of the setback suffered by certain retirement

    61
    pensioners in Scotland by the recent withdrawal by some local authorities of relief granted under the 1925 and 1947 Local Government Acts as a result of the Rating Act, 1966; and what steps she proposes to take, to alleviate their situation.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Yes, Sir. But as rate relief was usually disregarded for supplementary pension purposes, supplementary pension cannot be increased when relief is withdrawn. In some cases, however, where the rate relief was withdrawn at short notice and claimants had been relying on it to buy items such as clothing and bedding, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has given some extra help.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the loss of relief has materially affected the incomes of some pensioners? Will he or his right hon. Friend, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, urgently investigate this anomaly that seems to have arisen?
    Mr. Pentland: This is a question fundamentally for local authorities in Scotland, and, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my Department has no control over the actions of local authorities.

    Industrial Disputes (Contributions and Benefits)
    Mr. Orbachasked the Minister of Social Security when it is proposed to amend that part of the law relating to National Insurance contributions and benefits in respect of Class III contributions and benefits, where it refers to persons who are engaged in an industrial dispute.
    Miss Herbison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on 28th April.—[Vol. 745, c. 362–3.]

    Official Forms (Languages)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Social Security what languages other than English his Department has used and still uses on any forms to be filled by British citizens.
    Mr. Pentland: None, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: Should not the hon. Gentleman's Department make more use at least of the Welsh language, which is native to the island and spoken very widely in the country of Wales? Is he aware that I can give him information that Polish has been used in certain forms in his Department? Is he aware of the case of Miss Sally Davies, a retired school teacher, who has suffered some loss of pension because of her insistence on the use of the Welsh language?
    Mr. Pentland: I am not personally aware of the individual case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The demand for forms in languages other than English is extremely small, and, on average, there are only two or three demands a year for forms in the Welsh language. We have made a special effort, and we are always willing to send a Welsh-speaking officer to visit any Welsh-speaking applicant who would have difficulty in completing a form. If the hon. Member would like to submit particulars of the case he has mentioned, I would look into it.

    Part-time Employees (Contributions)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to revise the present 11s. 7d. a week contribution for part-time employees, including married women, working more than eight hours a week, which has to be made by their employers, so as to avoid the discouragement of part-time employment in future.
    Mr. Pentland: It has never been found practicable to introduce a reduced rate of contribution for part-time workers within the framework of the existing scheme of flat-rate contributions and benefits, but the position of such workers is being considered in our general review of the social security provisions.
    Mr. Allaun: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that fairly sympathetic Answer. Could not the part-time worker, working up to 21 hours a week, be helped with a refund in the same way as the Government have recently and rightly done over S.E.T.?
    Mr. Pentland: My hon. Friend will be aware that this matter brings in Departments other than the Ministry of Social Security. Our general review of social security provisions embraces the question of relating contributions and benefits more closely to earnings, but it would be wrong for me at this stage to anticipate the effect that might have on part-time workers generally.

    Leyland Combine, Coventry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Social Security why she has declined to meet a deputation of shop stewards from the Leyland Combine, Coventry, representing many thousands of workers, to be introduced by the hon. Member for Coventry, North, with a view to discussing specific matters affecting social insurance and benefits.
    Miss Herbison: Because, as I explained to my hon. Friend in my letter to him of 13th June, 1967, the main point at issue is a matter for the Minister of Labour on which he is at present sponsoring discussions at national level between representatives of employers and employees.
    Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the letter was an almost incomprehensible rigmarole of officialese? Is it not deplorable that a Minister of a Government which prides itself justly on the accessibility of workers to Ministers should decline to see a deputation of workers who have concerned themselves not only with matters affecting the Ministry of Labour but matters directly affecting her own Department?
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry if my hon. Friend found the reply a rigmarole, but the main point at issue is one for the Minister of Labour, and discussions are being held on these matters at national level. No disrespect was intended, but if I were to receive deputations of the kind my hon. Friend wishes, I would have no time for the day-to-day business of my Ministry. Much more important, I would have no time for the forward planning which is so necessary.
    Mr. Edelman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Social Benefits (Payment)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she has for the implementation of Government policy for the Income Tax in reverse method of paying social benefits.
    Miss Herbison: None, Sir. While Income Tax in reverse may in the long term prove useful in relation to some areas of administration where various kinds of means test are needed, there is no possibility of its being adopted in the near future.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of her hon. Friends were very pleased to see a reference to this method in the speech of the Minister without Portfolio the other day? Is it not about time now that her Ministry, which is doing so much for the Treasury in collecting and repaying S.E.T., urged the Treasury to show a little reciprocation in getting this scheme on to the stocks as soon as possible?
    Miss Herbison: I assure by hon. Friend that I have sympathy with what he has suggested, provided he is not suggesting that all benefits from my Department should work through Income Tax in reverse. For other benefits, school meals, rent rebates and so on, the most dignified way of doing it would be by Income Tax in reverse, but I warn my hon. Friend that that will take some time because it cannot be done until the Inland Revenue is computerised.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Lady agree that there is a fundamental difference between taking a little less of what people have earned and granting them a cash benefit?
    Miss Herbison: I should have to look very carefully at that question to find where justice lies.

    Contributions (Late Payments)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make a statement with regard to regulations to cover the case of McKenzie versus the Minister of Social Security.
    Miss Herbison: I shall be submitting to the National Insurance Advisory Committee draft amending regulations to extend my powers to accept contributions

    65
    paid late as having been paid at the due date, where there are special circumstances to warrant this course. I have thought it right to anticipate these regulations in the case to which the hon Lady refers.
    Dame Irene Ward: I thank the right hon. Lady for this small act of justice. When are the regulations governing the whole of this kind of concept likely to be introduced?
    Miss Herbison: I am submitting draft regulations. The hon. Lady will know that one has to wait for any representations, but the regulations will be introduced as speedily as possible.

    Research Projects
    Mr. Philip Hollandasked the Minister of Social Security (1) what research projects she is undertaking into the problems of those in need; and
    (2) what studies she is making into the problems of widows with dependent children.
    Miss Herbison: I am at present considering what research should be carried out by my Department and what should be the priorities. At present no research specifically directed to the problems referred to by the hon. Member is in hand.
    Mr. Holland: On the first Question, which is rather different from the second, will the right hon. Lady look into the possibility of making available in all the offices throughout the country the fullest possible information on every aspect of social security, including supplementary benefits?
    Miss Herbison: Certainly. At present, particularly when old people go to any one of my 1,200 offices, they can get information on matters which affect supplementary benefits. If the hon. Member has any knowledge of any office which does not have that information I shall be glad to hear of it.
    Mr. Molloy: In regard to the researches she has been making, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration suggestions put to her by the Disablement Income Group, which does so much for an unfortunate minority of our citizens who are in desperate need of some financial assistance?
    Miss Herbison: Certainly, this is one of the very big problems which we have very much in mind.

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Social Security how many pensioners are financially worse off under the earnings rule regulations recently introduced.
    Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) on 23rd June.—[Vol. 748, col. 350.]
    Mr. Dean: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have information, as no doubt she has, of many pensioners who are suffering a loss as a result of these regulations, in one case a loss of nearly £2 1s.? Will she at least ensure that where it works out that pensioners are worse off because of the new regulations she will find some way whereby that can be put right?
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but I could not give that assurance. This matter was very carefully examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It made very strong representations that the change which is worrying the hon. Member should take place. It recommended the higher figure of £6 10s., instead of £5, and the higher taper band of £2 instead of £1, in order to try to make the number who will not benefit smaller. The number is very small.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Just because a number is very small surely that does not make this right? Will the right hon. Lady look at it again? Is it fair to introduce earnings rule regulations which make some pensioners worse off than they were before?
    Miss Herbison: No, I shall certainly not look at it again—
    Mr. Ridsdale: Why not?
    Miss Herbison: Because the National Insurance Advisory Committee examined this matter and felt strongly that the anomalies should be cleared away. The fact is that those for whom the hon. Member is concerned had a very great advantage previously over the vast majority of retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Dean: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that it is most unusual when

    67
    changes are introduced in National Insurance that anybody should be worse off under the new arrangements?
    Miss Herbison: It may be unusual; but the people who are worse off—again I stress that the number is very small—are worse off than they were because they have a great deal more extra income. The advantage they previously had was something which disturbed the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

    Non-contributory Pensions
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Social Security (1) what would be the cost to the National Insurance fund of paying retirement and widows' pensions to all old people excluded from National Insurance in 1948 at the rates laid down in paragraph 3 of her memorandum on the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, 1967, Command Paper No. 3320; and
    (2) how many old people there are who were excluded from National Insurance in 1948; and what is their average age at the present date.
    Miss Herbison: The immediate annual cost would be about £40 million. The number involved would be about 175,000, with an average age of 85.
    Mr. Neave: Since these old people were not allowed by law to contribute to National Insurance, and as the Minister now intends to spend another £290 million in increases, cannot she afford to include them in her Bill? Is not this a very cruel and wicked policy? Will not she get away from officialdom and do something?
    Miss Herbison: I do not accept that it is a very cruel and wicked policy. This afternoon the Opposition has urged me to be more selective in what I am doing. What the hon. Gentleman asks is that I should indiscriminately give money to people who have not contributed. We have done something very worth while. Four hundred thousand more old people are in receipt of a supplementary pension; in other words, those who were never helped under the 13 years of Tory Government have been helped by us, and helped well.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Lady realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) is asking her to be selective in the case of people who
    68
    are more than 80 years old? Will she look at this again?
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked that indiscriminately I should give £40 million to some people who may be very well off indeed.

    Wage Stop
    Mrs. Lena Jegerasked the Minister of Social Security it she will estimate the number of people who will be wage-stopped after the implementation of the new rates of benefit; and what increase this represents over the current number of people on reduced benefit.
    Mr. Pentland: It is not possible to make any reliable estimate at the present time, but, if the new supplementary benefit rates are approved, up-to-date information will be available shortly after they come into operation.
    Mrs. Jeger: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, come October, many of the poorest families will have to pay an increased contribution from National Insurance from which, in times of unemployment and sickness, they will gain no benefit because of the wage-stop rule? It cannot be the Minister's intention that the poorest shall be poorer still.
    Mr. Pentland: My right hon. Friend and I have always recognised the difficulties involved in the wage stop. I have always held the belief, as I have said on more than one occasion in the House, that it is not so much the application of the wage stop which affects these people as the very low wages which many of them receive and which should be increased.

    Supplementary Benefits
    Mrs. Lena Jegerasked the Minister of Social Security what progress has been made in issuing written explanations of entitlement to supplementary benefits in cases where such explanations are not requested by the recipients.
    Miss Herbison: As I explained to the House during the Committee stage of the Ministry of Social Security Bill, this was one of the administrative arrangements associated with the new scheme which

    69
    could not be introduced immediately because of the amount of extra work involved. It has not so far proved possible to introduce it because of heavy pressure on the staff.
    Mrs. Jeger: When might it be possible to start this scheme, in which I know my right hon. Friend is personally very interested? Is it not often the most undemanding, shy and puzzled people who do not insist on getting these explanations who would be most assisted by getting them?
    Miss Herbison: I want to introduce this as speedily as possible; but I have discovered that, because of the more than 600,000 applications for the new supplementary pension, the members of my staff in these offices have been carrying a very heavy burden and working under very great strain. Their loyalty has been wonderful. I must wait until the strain is eased before I can add anything further to their burden.

  HOSPITALS

    Mental Hospitals (Conditions)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of unsatisfactory conditions in certain mental hospitals; and what enquiries he is making into such conditions.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am aware of recent anonymous allegations which are impossible to pursue, cast unfair suspicion on large numbers of hospital staff, and cause distress to patients' relatives. If any specific complaint or evidence is put forward in a way that makes enquiry possible, it will certainly be investigated.
    Mr. Fisher: Would not the Minister agree that the despair and degradation depicted in the Sunday Times articles, if true, amount to a public scandal? They are charges of nursing incompetence and even of brutality. These charges should be fully investigated. Would the Minister give the protection of anonymity to anyone who comes forward with the evidence?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, certainly. The hon. Gentleman said, "if true".
    Mr. Fisher: Of course.
    Mr. Robinson: Last year my Department issued a memorandum containing comprehensive guidance on the procedure for inquiry into complaints made by or on behalf of patients. I believe that the existing methods of dealing with complaints afford adequate protection for both patients and staff. I said this in answer to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller) on 11th April. That Answer, which also pointed out that it was clearly the duty of anyone who might have evidence of undesirable practices to produce it, was reproduced in full in a recent Press release, of which the Sunday Times received a copy.
    Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that unfortunately allegations of this type are constantly being made in the newspapers? There was a further allegation only yesterday in a Sunday newspaper with a large circulation. Although I agree with the qualification the Minister made, in view of the responsibility he has for the care of the sick in hospitals, will he not take an opportunity to rebut these allegations? Could he not carry out an investigation into the one which appeared yesterday in a Sunday newspaper, to restore public confidence?
    Mr. Robinson: I have not seen the one which appeared in a Sunday newspaper yesterday, but I will look into it. I do not know whether it is in a form which it is possible to pursue. I can only repeat, as I have said before in the House, that I am only too ready and anxious to investigate anything which can be investigated, but I deprecate these generalised smears against the psychiatric hospital service.
    Mr. Shinwell: Because many of these allegations, for which none of us can vouch, are somewhat disturbing, can we be assured that occasionally my right hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary, or somebody on his behalf from the Ministry, visits some of these institutions to ascertain whether there is any foundation for these allegations?
    Mr. Robinson: I can assure my right hon. Friend that both my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I and officials of my Department regularly visit psychiatric hospitals in this country.

    Teaching Hospitals (Doctors' Accommodation)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of accommodation units for married doctors resident in those London teaching hospitals where major rebuilding has been taking place and the total number of the increase of such units over those available before rebuilding.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Thirty-three and 32, on the assumption that major rebuilding comprises completed schemes costing £1 million or more, of which there have been four.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is totally inadequate and that there is extreme difficulty for junior hospital doctors in the London area, because of the high level of rents, when they are resident at the hospital and have to be on call? Further, is he aware that I have a mass of information from throughout the country showing that emigration of doctors is being increased because of this lack of facility? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Robinson: I have no evidence such as that spoken of by my hon. Friend that emigration of doctors is increasing on this account or on any other. I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. I answered the Question which my hon. Friend put down, which was limited to those hospitals in which there had been major rebuilding. It is often quicker to provide additional accommodation as a separate exercise rather than in the course of major rebuilding. This is how the extra accommodation to which I referred in my Answer was provided.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a grave problem here for all Metropolitan hospitals, and will be consider, as a Departmental exercise, enlisting the support of the National Housing Corporation, to see whether it can help to meet this serious need?
    Mr. Robinson: I know that there are difficulties, and I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. But I should like there to be no doubt here: it is my policy to encourage the provision of addi-
    72
    tional accommodation for married resident doctors.
    Mr. Pavitt: I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Fulham Hospital (Extension)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the distress caused to residents of Claybrook Road, London, S.W.6, due to the demolitions and problems of rehousing caused by the proposed extensions to Fulham Hospital now allied to Charing Cross Hospital; and if he will instruct the regional hospital board to take steps to minimise the inconvenience caused to local residents.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): My right hon. Friend is taking action on a report by the Charing Cross Hospital authorities following their recent meeting with the residents. He hopes that the result can be conveyed to the residents in early July.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that this situation in Claybrook Road, Fulham, has caused a great deal of upset and anguish, which might have been avoided if the regional hospital board, had it been empowered to do so, had held sensible discussions with representatives of the local authority and the police? It refused to do so, perhaps because it is not so empowered. Will my hon. Friend comment on this?
    Mr. Snow: There is undoubtedly a difficult rehousing problem here. I assure my hon. Friend and I am fully aware of the discomfort which might be experienced by residents in certain circumstances. However, he may be glad to know that a meeting is now proposed to take place between all the parties concerned on 8th July when it is hoped that a solution may be found, with the very welcome collaboration of the G.L.C., which bears the responsibility for the problem, but for dealing with which we also bear some responsibility.

    Public Relations
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Health how many public relations officers are employed by regional hospital boards; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the public relations of the hospital service as a whole.
    Mr. K. Robinson: One such appointment has been made: in other regions the function is carried out as part of the work of senior officers. I am considering what can be done generally to improve the public relations of the hospital service.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a heavy weighting of expertise in public relations in London? Would there not be great advantage to the regional hospital boards if they had more assistance in this direction?
    Mr. Robinson: It so happens that the region where this experimental appointment has been made is Sheffield. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for cultivating good relations between hospital authorities and the Press, and I have certainly impressed this upon hospital boards and committees.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Doctors (Post-Graduate Courses)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health if he will seek to institute postgraduate courses in therapeutics for doctors, once every five years, to be run by the universities or by the professional colleges.
    Mr. Robinson: Therapeutics is already accepted as an important part of postgraduate education and is usually included to some degree in particular courses. Many doctors attend such courses at least once every five years and the number of attendances rises steadily each year.
    Mr. Fisher: I am very glad to have that information. As half the drugs in use today were not available five years ago, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this rather dramatic rate of innovation and advance makes quite a few doctors out of date five years after they have qualified and that much of the money spent on promoting drugs could possibly be saved if doctors were better informed?
    Mr. Robinson: In general I would not dissent from that. In my Answer I said "at least once every five years". My Department pays towards the expenses of general practitioners attending these courses and gives financial help to the
    74
    establishments which run them. The expenditure by my Department has trebled since 1961 under these two heads.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend consider encouraging the much wider use of radio and television in postgraduate education, not only in therapeutics, but in other subjects as well?
    Mr. Robinson: This is a very interesting and important suggestion. It is primarily a matter for the universities which run these courses. No doubt they will take due note of what my hon. Friend has said.

    Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the review of vehicles for those disabled people needing such cars.
    Mr. Snow: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's statement on 15th February. We are giving effect to the steps announced on that occasion.—[Vol. 741, c. 523–31.]
    Mr. Winnick: How much longer is the review to take? Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a problem crying out for some humanity from both the Ministry of Health and the Treasury?
    Mr. Snow: Judging by the mail which I have received from both hon. Members and the public, I should not have thought that the Department could be accused of inhumanity at present. There are 1,600 households in process of receiving benefit from the new arrangements, and we think that the new permissive powers which my right hon. Friend will seek under a Bill, not to be taken this Session and which will depend on the priorities and financial resources, will do much to remedy the situation.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman now ready to consider the payment of grants for the conversion of cars to hand controls for war disabled pensioners, remembering that a man who has lost both legs in war has to pay £25 for such conversion?
    Mr. Snow: The hon. Lady may be under a misapprehension here. Although

    75
    there are many variations, financial provision of this kind is generally available. I shall write to her to give the details.
    Mr. Paget: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the last Session I promoted a Bill to give him just the powers which are wanted here but his Department blocked it? Does not he realise that to condemn disabled people to going only in single-seaters without companions is both dangerous and very hard?
    Mr. Snow: The Measure to which my hon. and learned Friend refers was considered purely on drafting grounds not to be suitable. I have already said that it is our intention to introduce a general Measure which will take care of the point which he raises.
    Sir R. Cary: Does what the hon. Gentleman has said about new regulations mean that we shall not have the necessary new provisions until somewhere in the middle of the next Session?
    Mr. Snow: We are already considering these matters. As and when opportunity permits, we shall introduce the Measure, and I do not think that there will be a great delay.

    Dental Health Education
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health how much was spent by his Department on dental health education in each of the last three years; and what is the amount budgeted for under this heading this year.
    Mr. Snow: Local health authorities have the primary responsibility for dental health education. Expenditure by my Department was about £2,500 in 1964–65 and £3,000 in each of the two subsequent years; it will continue at that level for 1967–68.
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for the dental health education leaflets and posters approved by his Department to be made available free of charge to registered dental practitioners for distribution to their National Health Service patients.
    Mr. Snow: Publicity material produced by my Department is available free of charge to dental practitioners. My right hon. Friend welcomes the production of
    76
    material by other bodies, but he regrets that he has no funds to ensure its free distribution.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leaflets produced by the Oral Hygiene Service, with the approval of the Ministry, have to be paid for in cash by dentists and those produced by the General Dental Council are paid for obliquely by dentists? Does not he agree, now that we are paying £1,200 million a year for the National Health Service, that it is time we devoted a bit more to teaching people how to use it or how to avoid having to use it?
    Mr. Snow: I think that the problem to which the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself is the incidence of caries in the early years, and it is a fact that cariogenic substances such as sucrose embodied in such things as lollipops, sweets and sweet drinks present a serious danger, and there is great need for dental education. This is a subject for consideration by the new Health Education Council, and we are taking steps to develop this as and when financial circumstances permit.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend consider extending this beyond the local health authorities and give further publicity to correct oral hygiene for children on television?
    Mr. Snow: I am glad to say that the television authorities at present show free of charge certain filmlets dealing with these matters, and we are very grateful to them for it. I understand that these filmlets are short films having a distinct educational value.

    Drug Addiction
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Health what consultations he has had with the London teaching hospitals about future arrangements for treating drug addiction in London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: General principles of treatment of heroin addiction were considered at two medical conferences of the consultant psychiatrists concerned. Separate discussions took place with each hospital individually. Informal discussions on points of practical application

    77
    will continue with a group representative of interested London hospital boards.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least one London teaching hospital has expressed grave misgivings about certain aspects of this scheme and doubt as to whether it will work? Is he sure that he is proceeding on the right lines?
    Mr. Robinson: I should be interested to have further details of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As far as I am aware, there is no general dissent among those primarily concerned with this matter about the way we are proceeding. Out-patient facilities are now available at nine hospitals in central London and other clinics will be opened in due course. About 30 hospitals in the London area already provide facilities for in-patient treatment of addicts of all types.
    Mr. Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more precise about it? When the Dangerous Drugs Bill was going through the House, we warned him that it was likely to be unworkable. Is he now saying that the hospitals have not told him that his scheme presents difficulties at present? In view of the continued delay in setting up adequate treatment centres, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make a statement on the matter before we rise for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Robinson: There is no suggestion that the hospital authorities have told me that the system is unworkable. There are difficulties, of course. We always knew that there would be difficulties, and there has never been any denial from this Box that there are difficulties. But I have no evidence at present that the scheme is not progressing satisfactorily. I have already said that there are about 30 hospitals in the London area providing treatment at this moment.
    Mr. Braine: Will the Minister answer the last part of my question? In view of the continued delay in setting up really adequate treatment facilities in London, will he make a statement before we rise for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir; I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise.

    Bread
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Health whether he will carry out an inquiry into the effect on human health and the incidence of degenerative diseases, of the present extraction rate from and addition of chemicals to bread.
    Mr. Snow: No, Sir. Much research is taking place, in this country and elsewhere, into the causes of degenerative diseases, but no evidence has so far emerged which suggests that the present composition of flour and bread might be a cause.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a body of opinion, much of it medical, which takes the view that too much good is being taken out of the flour and too much not so good being put into it? Would not the Government do well to keep this closely under review?
    Mr. Snow: A report published in Sweden in 1965 showed no immediate relationship between cardiovascular mortalities and the intake of linolenic acid, an amount of which is present in white bread. While it is true that there is an obvious advantage in brown bread as such, it is also possible that a higher extraction rate of the flour from the grain might lead to less chronic constipation, but it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate by inquiry that white bread was the cause.
    Dr. Winstanley: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has just said. However, is he aware that there is widespread anxiety among the public and the medical profession about food additives in general, and in particular about the use of hormone preparations? Will he look into that aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Snow: That does not relate to this Question, but it is the responsibility of the appropriate committee which continuously investigates additives in food.

    Lung Cancer (Cigarette Smoking)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Health what has been the result of his campaign to discourage cigarette smoking, in view of the effect

    79
    on the incidence of lung cancer; what new evidence to support or discount the connection has been brought to his notice; what additional efforts he now proposes to discourage cigarette smoking; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Between 1961 and 1965 there was a substantial rise in the numbers of non-smokers. The figures for 1966 were less encouraging but the proportion of adults who do not smoke is still above the 1961 level. Surveys show that most people are now aware of the health risks of smoking. Several studies have been published since the report of the Royal College of Physicians in 1962 on "Smoking and Health" which confirm the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and certain other diseases. I am considering what further steps can be taken to discourage cigarette smoking.
    Dr. Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health what further steps he will take to assist those cigarette smokers who wish to give up the habit.
    Mr. K. Robinson: We are continually looking at ways in which cigarette smokers who wish to stop can be helped to do so, but I have no new steps to announce at present.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if present trends continue more than 1 million of those living in Britain today will die of lung cancer? Is there not an overwhelming need for very much more education of the general public about the health hazards resulting from cigarette smoking?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir; I think there is room for further emphasis. While I am not in a position to confirm my hon. Friend's statistics, I think that broadly he is not far from the mark.
    Mr. Jennings: In order to reduce the amount of cigarette smoking, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the excessive duty on pipe tobacco with a view to persuading people to go over to pipes instead of cigarettes?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    CONTEMPT OF COURT
    Sir E. Bullusasked the Attorney-General if he will review the procedure of committal to prison for contempt of court, in view of the deleterious effects of lengthy detention on those concerned.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The power of the courts to punish for contempt was reviewed by Parliament in 1960, when defendants were given a right of appeal in every case against an order of committal. Every person committed for contempt is immediately informed by the Official Solicitor of the steps he should take to purge his contempt, and the Official Solicitor makes regular reports, which contain full information about the prisoner's mental condition, to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. In appropriate cases, this information is brought to the attention of the judge, who may then order the release of the prisoner.
    Sir E. Bullus: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that information. Is he aware that one of my constituents, Mrs. Illovy of Kingsbury, recently completed 300 days in prison for contempt of court and has since been transferred to a mental hospital? I have since learned that her case is not without parallel. Is it not possible to have some form of mediation or regular review behind the scenes in cases like this?
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of that distressing case. However, having been committed to Holloway Prison on 25th July last year Mrs. Illovy was informed by the Official Solicitor of the steps she should take to obtain her release, but she refused to take any. After six months the Official Solicitor applied to the court for consideration to be given to her release, but the judge felt unable to release her because of her attitude. After further interviews with the Official Solicitor, when again she refused to change her attitude, a medical report showed that her mental health had deteriorated, and as a result she was admitted to a mental hospital. These cases are very sad. The matter was considered in 1959 by Justice, which recognised that there is no satisfactory alternative to the courts' present powers of imprisonment if

    81
    their orders are to be satisfactorily enforced.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, notwithstanding the reviews to which he has referred, in this respect the law and procedure are completely outmoded, particularly with regard to the finding of contempt and also with regard to the duration of the sentence, and that the whole matter is due for a further review?
    The Attorney-General: As I have said, the matter was recently reviewed by Parliarnent. The duration of the sentence unfortunately depends upon the contemner himself or herself.

    "TORREY CANYON"
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Attorney-General what progress has been made in obtaining compensation from the foreign interests concerned for the damage caused, and cost incurred, in the United Kingdom as a result of the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".
    The Attorney-General: Actions have been commenced both in this country and in Bermuda against the Barracuda Tanker Corporation, the owners of the "Torrey Canyon". The Treasury Solicitor has invited the Corporation to submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts, but so far it has not agreed to do so. However, the Bermudan writ has been served and that action is taking its normal course.

    D NOTICES (MR. CHAPMAN PINCHER)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General why he has decided not to institute proceedings against Mr. Chapman Pincher, the editor of the Daily Express,and the Express Newspapers Limited, in connection with the D notices issue.
    The Attorney-General: No proceedings were instituted because there was no evidence that Mr. Chapman Pincher, or the editor of the Daily Express, or the Express Newspapers Limited, had committed a criminal offence.
    Mr. Lewis: As very serious charges and allegations have been made against
    82
    these and other people by the Prime Minister and other persons in authority, should not they be charged so that the charges are proved against them or they have the opportunity of proving their innocence, or should not the charges be withdrawn and suitable apologies made?
    The Attorney-General: As I have said, the question directed to me was whether any of the people concerned had committed a criminal offence. The answer is "No", and the matter therefore was not for me.
    Mr. Barber: Does the Attorney-General recall that last Thursday the Prime Minister told the House that inquiries had been made in the autumn of 1964, especially—that was his word—concerning Mr. Chapman Pincher? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House when those inquiries were started, when they were completed, whether the outcome was reported to Ministers and what was the outcome?
    The Attorney-General: None of these matters related to the office of Attorney-General, and they are not within my province.
    Mr. Barber: Is the Attorney-General, who opened the debate the other day, telling us that he has no knowledge of these matters, or is he deliberately refusing to give the information to the House in an attempt to cover up the scandalous conduct of the Prime Minister?
    The Attorney-General: There is nothing to cover up, and the Question directed to me is whether a criminal offence was committed by the persons referred to in that Question. I have given the Answer.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that a great deal of the mud thrown by the Prime Minister at the Daily Express, and its staff has now stuck? Would it not be appropriate and gracious for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to advise the Prime Minister to send an apology to the Daily Express and notably to Mr. Chapman Pincher?
    The Attorney-General: No doubt these questions can be addressed to the proper place.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Attorney-General deprecate this type of thing,

    83
    which amounts to persecution of individuals who cannot reply for themselves? Would it not be a good thing, in view of what happened at one minute to ten last Thursday, to reopen the Radcliffe Inquiry and make a few more inquiries about what did happen?
    The Attorney-General: This also does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir J. Hobson: Will the Attorney-General confirm that there is no evidence of any official disclosure having been made between Colonel Lohan and Mr. Chapman Pincher, and will he say whether he knew the facts disclosed by the Prime Minister at the end of the debate last Thursday and did not mention them at the beginning because they were irrelevant or because he thought that they had nothing to do with the debate?
    The Attorney-General: These questions do not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper, and therefore are not for me.

    GOODY v. ODHAMS PRESS
    Mr. Moreasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the recent case of Goody v. Odhams Press; and what steps he is proposing to take to remove the present legal anomalies which made possible the bringing of this case.
    The Attorney-General: The Law Reform Committee is at present considering, as part of its review of the law of evidence, whether or not a criminal conviction should be admissible in evidence in subsequent civil proceedings, including, of course, libel proceedings. I have no doubt that the Committee will have the decision in Goody v. Odhams Press well in mind.
    Mr. More: Why have the Government in the past 12 months been deliberately blocking a Bill of mine which won a place in the Ballot and which is to deal with Press freedom, particularly the anomalies that oppress the newspapers of this country, including those to which this case has drawn attention?
    The Attorney-General: I have indicated that the matter has been under the consideration of this highly-powered and
    84
    expert Committee, and its report may be received shortly.
    Mr. Hogg: As both the cases referred to in the Question and a subsequent case were adverted to in the Court of Appeal, will the Government act on the report if it is positive?
    The Attorney-General: We shall wait to see it, but a report emanating from this source carries very great weight. Indeed, the Government have been endeavouring to give effect to reports from this source in the course of the past 2½ years.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister without Portfolio what are the general principles on which the Government's new scheme for family allowances will be based.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement on child poverty which we have promised to make before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend give careful thought to the need for rents to be taken into account in the case of low income families, as they are with the supplementary benefits scheme? Would not he agree that, certainly in the London area, rents are often a crucial factor in causing child poverty?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I think it is true that the impact of rents varies considerably in different parts of the country and is a factor of importance, but I must ask my hon. Friend to await the report.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are considering treating children's allowances as unearned income? Can he say how much this would release for concentrating benefits on the families which most need them?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that we should await the full statement of our policy, which will deal with all these and other aspects of the problem. It is not possible to deal with it in little bits.
    Mr. Dean: Will the Minister bear in mind that if Income Tax child allowances

    85
    were devalued many families not now paying Income Tax would come into the Income Tax range?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: That is certainly a factor to be taken into account. I understand it well.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no conflict between the speech he made in the country a week last Saturday, I think, and the statement made in the House last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly I can.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will take into account in any statement on the future policy for alleviating child poverty the need for active co-ordination of the supporting services.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree teat there is a need for what might be called a family service, that is, a single co-ordinated service for helping families in trouble? Secondly, does he not further agree that the proliferation of means tests is to be avoided and that the single test of the Income Tax return should be enough for every family?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: There is force in both comments The Seebohm Committee is going into the whole question of the reorganisation of local authority services and I am myself considering the co-ordination of means tests, which, like all problems, is a little more difficult when one comes to deal with it than had been thought.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: In the context of alleviating child poverty, can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny, or at least comment on, persistent Press speculation that he favours an increase in the charge for school meals and the imposition of a charge for school milk?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I have not seen those retorts in the newspapers. However, I do not want to say anything by way of assertion or denial ahead of our comprehensive statement which we will make before the Summer Recess.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Minister without Portfolio what action is being taken to co-ordinate the services for the disabled.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am in constant touch with my colleagues in social services Departments about the need for and possibilities of concerted action as part of the review of social services.
    Mr. Williams: Is any action being taken, as suggested by the Disablement Income Group, to find out the number and needs of disabled people?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, we are considering this very carefully. There are problems, of course, of identification and definition. A feasibility study is being made by Bedford College on behalf of the Minister of Health and we are awaiting that before proceeding further with any surveys which we may make ourselves.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for the first time since the passing of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, the Government themselves are failing to employ the required 3 per cent. disabled persons? As a job is vital to the rehabilitation of the disabled and as the Government are expected to set a good example in these matters, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will co-ordinate the efforts of his colleagues in this matter?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour who is primarily responsible for the specific matter which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

    Cash Benefits and Supporting Services
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister without Portfolio what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the cash benefits and the supporting services provided for those in need.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I accept that local authority social services have a vital rôle to play.
    I must apologise to the House. I am reading a supplementary answer. The following is the main Answer: The work

    87
    of co-ordination is continually going on, in close co-operation with the Ministers concerned. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular suggestion for improving co-ordination, I shall be pleased to consider it.
    Mr. Dean: Having had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary answer, can I ask him whether he recognises that four or five Ministries are involved? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient locking-in of the efforts of those Ministries and the local authorities to ensure full value for money?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am aware how many Ministers are concerned, because I have to deal with co-ordinating them. I think that we are sufficiently locked into use the hon. Gentleman's own words—but it is more difficult to get some degree of co-operation between Government Departments and local authorities, because in many respects local authorities are independent.

    Social Services
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister without Portfolio (1) what studies he is making into the problems of the elderly;
    (2) what studies he is making into the problems of disabled housewives.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister without Portfolio what studies he is making into the problems of the chronic sick.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: All these problems are being studied by the Ministers concerned and I am in close touch with them about these matters, as part of my responsibility for co-ordinating the social services.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer does not appear to envisage any urgency in the tackling of this problem, which is urgent, particularly in view of the price rises of recent months? Will he try to get more of a smart move on?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry that there was not sufficient urgency in my voice, but there is certainly urgency in my intentions.
    Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that being crippled for life is certainly a form of being permanently sick? In his examination of the present decision, will he consider the situation of a person who might be crippled for life because of an accident at home and who is unjustly treated compared with someone crippled for life at work? Does he intend to do anything about that anomalous situation?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We are carefully studying this matter. There are special problems of definition and so on, but we are studying it carefully and we will try to make surveys to discover the extent of the difficulty and how to remedy it.
    Mr. Dean: How many staff does the right hon. Gentleman have in the Department to assist him in the study of this and similar social problems?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I have none in my own Department, but I can and do call upon the staff in the various Ministries whose work I have to co-ordinate. I have never found that that has hampered me in any way. It is much better to do it this way than to multiply officials in my own Department.

ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT
Mr. Enoch Powell Mr. Enoch Powell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet received the letter from the French Minister of Defence with reference to the Anglo-French variable geometry project, and whether he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the" letter, but since the statement that I made in the House last week I have received a letter from M. Messmer which I shall be discussing with him on Thursday, 29th June. Until this meeting has taken place I am not in a position to make any further statement.
Mr. Powell: First, was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the purport of that letter when he answered Questions in the House last Wednesday? Secondly, does he appreciate the urgency of giving some

89
firmness to a project which hitherto entirely lacks it?
Mr. Healey: On the second question, of course, yes, Sir. On the first question, of course, no, Sir.
Mr. Rankin: Is it or is it not the case that the French are anxious to divorce themselves from the joint construction with Britain of the variable geometry aircraft?
Mr. Healey: As I was saying, I am not in a position to make any further statement on this matter until I have had an opportunity of discussing this question with M. Messmer.
Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least confirm the possibility of offering the French Government some farm of bridging finance for the development phase, if necessary, and if it comes to the worst and they wish to pull out, will he make certain that a British project takes its place?
Mr. Healey: On the first question, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is genuinely concerned, unlike perhaps some other hon. Members of the House, that the joint Anglo-French project should succeed. If there is any way in which we can help the French to meet the financial difficulties which they may find over the project, we shall certainly seek to do so.
Mr. Edelman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the joint specification for the co-operative project has yet been established, and is he aware that it has been widely stated in France that the joint project will not come to fruition because the French want to put into production the Mirage HIG?
Mr. Healey: On the first question, I have already told the House that the French Minister of Defence and I have agreed in detail the specification for the project. I have no reason to believe that the specification or the project is not in accordance with the desires and interests of the French Government.

FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO NEW YORK)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the
90
House, I wish to make a statement on my visit to New York.
During the five days that I was in the United States I addressed the Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly; I had long and valuable talks in Washington with President Johnson and in New York with Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko, with Mr. Rusk, Monsieur Couve de Murville, and with the Foreign Ministers and other representatives of almost all the countries directly concerned in the Middle East crisis.
The main theme of my speech to the General Assembly was to emphasise the urgent need to begin to deal at once with practical problems—the things we could do and ought to be doing now. I spoke also about some of the elements which had to be included in any final settlement. In particular I referred to the provisions of the United Nations Charter which call for all countries to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any other country. I made it clear also that in our view all States in the Middle East had a right to live in genuine independence.
Speaking on the lines of the speech that I made in Nottingham just before I went I said that territorial aggrandisement as a result of war was contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and that other elements in a final settlement must be a long overdue solution of the refugee problem, the necessity for free and innocent passage through international waterways for the ships of all nations and the urgent requirement for an agreement on arms limitation. All this would, no doubt, require long and difficult negotiation and it is too early to see the outcome. Meanwhile there were certain practical steps which should be taken now. These, I said, included nomination by the Secretary-General of a representative, of unquestioned standing, who should go at once to the area and advise on the whole range of problems resulting from the cease-fire. In particular he could make recommendations for strengthening the work of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and upon the form which a new United Nations military presence in the Middle East might take. There were, I said, a range of urgent problems also relating to

91
those who had had to flee from their homes as a result of the war. Not only must they be allowed to return to their homes, but the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the voluntary organisations must be provided urgently with the means of relieving their distress.
Apart from these problems I spoke of the urgent need to get the Suez Canal open again and I dealt very firmly with the vicious allegations about British involvement in the fighting. I ended my speech with a solemn warning that if the United Nations made no progress in solving these problems, there was a very real danger that it might go the way of the League of Nations.
I had in fact been the first speaker to emphasise the need to tackle urgent practical problems now and I was encouraged by the degree of support that I received for this from those speakers who followed me. The speech was I think well received in the United Nations itself and in newspaper, television and radio comment in New York. I gather that it has had a more mixed reception in this country. I must emphasise that we must at all costs avoid falling into the trap of applying a double standard. Would a similar line have been taken if the war had gone the other way—if, for example, the Arab air force had struck first and if Arab armies had occupied significant parts of the territory of Israel? What would then have been said about the permanent retention of territorial gains made by conquest?
As for the status of Jerusalem, may I remind the House of the attitude of successive British Governments in the past. The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 left the city divided between Israel and Jordan and this de facto partition persisted until the recent hostilities. But a General Assembly resolution of 9th December, 1949, provided that there should be a unified city under international control. Her Majesty's Government, along with most other Western Governments, have always withheld recognition of the claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem by both Jordan and Israel pending a final settlement. For this reason our Embassy in Israel, like those of most other countries, is in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem. Our Consul-General in Jerusalem is
92
subordinate neither to the Ambassador in Tel Aviv nor to the Ambassador in Amman but directly to the Foreign Office.
I therefore went on in my speech in New York to warn the Israel Government not to inject another complication into the situation which is already more than sufficiently complicated by purporting to annex the old city. This is not simply a problem of religious administration of the Holy Places. It is not simply a problem of access to the Holy Places. Of course, we are all in favour of free access by all—Jews, Christians and Moslems—to their places of worship. The problem is one of sovereignty over territory and the Israel Government would, in my view, be very unwise indeed to attempt to prejudge the form of an eventual settlement. I am not asking for a return to a divided Jerusalem. Nor do I want to forecast what the eventual arrangements may be, except to repeat what I said in New York, that any lasting settlement of which they form part must, among other things, clearly recognise the right of all States concerned to live in true dignity and true freedom.
I spent the rest of my time discussing the Middle East crisis and bilateral problems with those who had come to New York to attend the Assembly. It would not be proper to go into details of confidential discussions, but the House may take it that I left the three Arab delegates concerned in no doubt whatever about our attitude to their completely unjustified interruption of our oil supplies and to the closure of the Suez Canal. This is a matter in which we must, of course, work with our friends who share an interest in getting the Canal reopened. I might add that this interest is not all one-sided; the United Arab Republic itself is a heavy loser as a result of the closure of this international waterway. I also had valuable talks on matters of mutual interest with representatives from areas other than the Middle East.
As regards the future, much will depend on the outcome of the talks which took place between President Johnson and Mr. Kosygin. I would expect the debate in the United Nations Assembly to continue for at least a week and maybe longer. During this time there will be much discussion on the floor and behind the scenes of the kind of resolution which would command a majority vote in the

93
Assembly. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, taking a full part in these discussions. It is too early to say what will be the outcome.
I believe that my visit to New York enabled me to urge upon all in the United Nations the vital necessity of tackling the immediate practical problems. I was also able to make clear in my speech and in my numerous private discussions that the main interest of the United Kingdom is in a lasting settlement acceptable to all parties: equitable and, therefore, justifiable.
Mr. Heath: We are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making this statement. I hope he realises that the reason for what he described as the mixed reception to his speech here is that by his emphasis of the non-aggrandisement followed immediately in that particular part of his speech by his reference to Jerusalem, he appeared to be doing exactly what he said he did not wish to do, which was to forecast what the eventual arrangements are going to be. This, in fact, appeared to be a return to the exact status quo from which the trouble had originally sprung. May I therefore put to him this question? Is it his view that the final frontiers remain to be settled as one part of the total final package arrangement?
I should like to return to the other matters that he mentioned. As to the denial of the participation of British troops in the crisis, I noticed that he said in his speech, as a demonstration of this, that he had placed the ships' logbooks in the Library of the House of Commons where they were available for anybody to see and read them. This is not really the case. Is this sufficiently strong action to prove to the rest of the world that there was no participation?
Thirdly, as far as the opening of the Canal is concerned, the House is most anxious to learn exactly what the position is about the Canal being closed. What is the reason for it? How did it happen? Where exactly is it closed? Is there any reason why the four British ships should not be allowed to go out to the south?
Finally, about the British refugees—those who are refugees from Middle Eastern countries—coming back to this country, what are the Government now doing to look after them?
Mr. Brown: I will do my best to deal with all of those matters. If I miss any one of them, no doubt I shall be reminded.
On the first point, about what I said and how the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, if the right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, waited to read my speech, and in particular paragraphs 19 to 22, he would have seen that one follows immediately after the other, and the real point was that the misunderstanding so far as he was concerned was that, not for the first time—[Interruption.]—I shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will listen. He made the charge, after all. He took a shortened and, therefore, inevitably distorted passage in a newspaper and fastened on that to say that I had somehow misled anybody. In fact, if he had read it he would see that in paragraph 19 I start with Jerusalem and in paragraph 22, only three paragraphs later, I deal with the question of the rights of all States to live. The whole thing forms one whole.
I simply do not accept from the right hon. Gentleman or from anybody else that I was in any way responsible for any misunderstanding there was in this House the other night. We are in too much of a hurry in this place to take newspaper, shortened reports and assume that that is exactly what is done.
On the question of the frontiers, I recall that quite clearly in the speech. I made it quite clear in my statement today. When we come to a final settlement, the right of the States to live in true dignity, in freedom, to be able to earn their living in peace—that is what I said in New York; that is what I believe—that will have to be balanced against some other demands that will be made. I do not think this is the moment to prejudge all that.
On the question of the log-books, yes I did believe when I was in New York that they had already been placed in the House of Commons. I now learn that it took rather longer to collect them from the ships, but they are now here and they will be in the Library in a day or so—certainly in the next day or two—and the point will, therefore, be very easily cleared up. I apologise for the delay, but maybe I assumed too much. I thought it might be a simple matter

95
to collect them and I assumed too much. There is no reason for smiling about it or giving the impression that there is anything here but the ordinary practical business of collecting them from ships which are dispersed about the seas. But they will be there in their proper form in the next day or two.
As to the Canal, it is in fact blocked in two different areas between Ismailia and Port Said and at the southern end. I think it is reasonable to assume that it was blocked by ships or other obstacles which were placed there by the Egyptians. It is, as I said when I was in New York, a matter of great urgency to persuade the Egyptians or use some other means of getting it open.
Concerning our own ships—[Interruption.]—I have not the slightest intention of sending a gunboat. I suggest to the Opposition that we should treat this with a bit of sense. We want at the end of this crisis a lasting settlement which will carry everybody with us. As I said in my speech, this is a moment to concert with our friends who are also involved. There are 13 ships in that area and we have four of them. There are a lot of other countries involved. I am in touch with them and we all believe that, given what the Egyptians are losing by keeping the Canal shut, given that we have our passengers and most of our crews off, it would be a wrong thing at this moment to go crowding in on the issue. We are acting in concert as to what should be done, when it should be done and how it should be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) the other day asked why we do not seek an injunction in the International Court.
Mr. Sandys: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. Brown: I thought I had read it in HANSARD. It would be a mistake at this moment, for a number of reasons, to move in on that issue. It is better to take it, as we are all agreed, at the present rate of progress.
On British subjects, we have got most of them home. The bulk of those who stayed behind are in Israel. There are some wives who staved elsewhere. We have looked after them as they have
96
come home and have seen to them. We have reserved all our rights for compensation for property and other kinds of disturbance and we are currently in touch with each of them to see what they have suffered as a result.
Mr. Heath: From this side of the House we have been trying to elucidate what the Foreign Secretary's speech meant and that is what we were trying to do with the Prime Minister last Thursday afternoon, as I think the Prime Minister will agree.
The Foreign Secretary must not think that absence in New York for a week is sufficient ground for ignorance of what the Press of this country, the rest of the world and Members of this House have been saying. What I said in the House was that his speech had been widely interpreted and, when one reads it in full, it is still open to that interpretation. The Foreign Secretary had better realise it.
Secondly, what evidence was there that Israel was intending formally to annexe the Old City of Jerusalem? No evidence was or has been produced. The Foreign Secretary owes it to the House to say so.
Lastly, concerning the denying of the lie about British participation, my point is that the House of Commons Library is not open to the rest of the world to come and examine the log-books of British ships. If the Foreign Secretary wants to deny that he must take more active steps to do so.
Mr. Brown: On the last point, the only man I have met in the last five days who cast any doubts on the lie being a lie appears to be the right hon. Gentleman [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to mix it, we will mix it. There was nobody in New York who believed this or who cast doubt upon our denials any longer, and the Egyptian representative, Dr. Fawzi, did not even include it in his speech. If I were the right hon. Gentleman I would drop that one as fast as I could.
As to the Press, five days' absence from this country will never make me ignorant of the misrepresentations which appear in our Press. Nor will it ever lead me to the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman makes up his other deficiencies by seizing on them and trying to use them.

97
On annexation, the right hon. Gentleman says there was never any evidence; and I ought to tell the House, as he must well know, having served in the Foreign Office, there are things that one cannot in fact say in public. But he must take it from me—[Interruption.] When he has finished muttering, may I say to him that there is a very distinguished team of people who serve in our posts abroad most of them known to him, and a very distinguished team of advisers, on all of whom he relied. I had every reason to take the moment for saying what I said.
Mr. Heath: In view of the Foreign Secretary's—[Interruption.]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a lot of questions to be asked. I hope we can have quiet.
Mr. Heath: As I was the first to support the Prime Minister's statement that British troops had not taken part in any operations in the Middle East, I challenge the Foreign Secretary to produce any evidence that I have ever believed it myself and I call upon him now to withdraw. It is much too soon for him to behave like the Prime Minister.
Mr. Brown: One tells the honest truth. It is a wee bit late. We once tried together.
The real point is that the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has just made seem to me to do less than justice to the position of our country and that is why I said what I said.
Mr. Thorpe: I would ask the Foreign Secretary three questions. First, is it not unfortunate that the Foreign Secretary has come down to this House to explain what he really meant in a speech, whether made either in this Chamber or at the United Nations?
Secondly, having read the speech carefully in full, would he not agree that it is unbalanced to refer to withdrawals in the context of Article 2 without any reference to the threat to the integrity of Israel which started this up?
Thirdly, would he not agree that it would be unethical if our present stand now were to indicate that we are seeking to revive friendship with the Arab countries at the price of selling the Israelis down the river?
Mr. Brown: On the question of the unbalanced nature of the speech, this has now got a good deal of currency. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that no one who heard it thought it was unbalanced, neither the British correspondents who were there, nor my colleagues, nor the other countries—not any commentator. It is for him to say whether it is as good a speech as he would have made in the circumstances. However, it is balanced and it does include the reference which he says is missing, which suggests that perhaps he has not read it as clearly as he thought.
It is no good the Leader of the Opposition looking at paragraph 18. He must come down to paragraph 22. The references are there and it is balanced but there is a problem that I have had to face and, with respect, everyone who has ever held this position in whatever Government has had to face it. The moment one balances considerations for the case of the Arabs with that of the Israelis, then one is under enormous pressures for being unbalanced for that reason. I am not the first Foreign Secretary to suffer from this difficulty.
On the question of appeasing the Arabs at the expense of Israel, that is never a charge that could ever be really levied at me with any justice. For very highly personal reasons, I have every reason for caring about the integrity, peaceful defence and the right to live of Israel and there is not the slightest chance of my forgetting that. Britain has important, vital interests in that part of the world and a British Foreign Secretary has to consider them as well as other things. That is what I was trying to do.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that there is no conflict between what appears in paragraph 18 of his speech, referring to territorial aggrandisement, and paragraph 23, referring to free access to international waterways? Can he say whether there has been any response by the Israeli Government to his suggestion that Jerusalem should be regarded as more or less an international free city in view of what is reported in the Press today about the attitude of the Mayor of Jerusalem to this matter?
Mr. Brown: No doubt there are many arguments going on in Israel and there are different views there about how Israeli interests would be best safeguarded. I would rather not comment on them. I have had no comment from the Israeli Government about the question of Jerusalem's future, nor would I expect it at the moment. But I said in my speech that this must be part of the final settlement. There are other things to be taken into account. I do know that no annexation of the Old City has taken place and I am relieved about that. I do not believe that there can be any conflict between what I said in paragraph 18—the paragraphs are so numbered for convenience—and what I said in paragraph 23 regarding the question of territorial aggrandisement being outlawed by Article 2 of the Charter. It is something by which we are all bound.
The Government of that time was not from this party. It was from the party opposite and we are all bound by what was then worked out and signed. It applies to everybody. It applies when it comes to shutting waterways which should be kept open. It applies when it comes to taking over somebody else's territory. I am not willing to choose between the two because one is more convenient to me than another.
Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that his desire to ensure a lasting and peaceful settlement in the Middle East is shared by every right hon. and hon. Member? There is no dispute about that. Does he also appreciate that his warning to Israel on the subject of territorial aggrandisement created the impression that he was condemning Israel, that he was prejudging the intentions of the Israelis before seeking to ascertain the facts?
In view of the conversations he had with Mr. Kosygin, President Johnson and others, did he seek a conversation with the Israeli Foreign Minister before he made his speech at the United Nations in order to ascertain what the intentions of the Israeli Government were? Did he do so?
My right hon. Friend has spoken about what might have happened if the Arabs had gained the victory. Does not he recall the threat by the Arab States and President Nasser of annihilation of Israel?
100
How then would the question of territorial aggrandisement emerge?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Foreign Secretary to reply, I would point out that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to ask questions. If the questions are very long, we shall not get many.
Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for his kindly opening. I share the same thing. As to whether I discussed my speech with Mr. Eban before I made it, the answer is that I most certainly did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am about to explain if the House will hold itself for a second.
Many delegates, many other Foreign Ministers, many Prime Ministers, wanted to see me before I made my speech. I decided that, if I saw any of them before I spoke, there was the gravest risk of its being alleged that what I said was due to the influence of someone or other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason—because I had reason to worry about what was going to happen and I wanted to do what I could to ensure that it did not happen.
With regard to the Arabs and previous threats, I have taken exactly the same stand with them as I have taken with the Israelis. I repeat that our business is to maintain a long-standing, traditional and very profitable friendship with the Arabs and the Israelis and I will try to hold it this way. I ask my right hon. Friend not to ignore the value to us of our friendship with the Arabs and not to ignore the contribution we need to make in that area. But any idea that I will engage in double talk can be written off straight away.
I spoke to every single delegate in New York privately, just as I did in public, in exactly the same terms and they all know the basis on which I think a settlement should emerge.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, having failed to speak to the Israeli Foreign Secretary before he made his speech, he took the opportunity of speaking to him afterwards?
Mr. Brown: There was no failure to speak to him beforehand. Would I have spoken to the Egyptians beforehand?

101
Would I have spoken to the Saudi Arabians beforehand? Why does one choose the Israelis as the one to whom one speaks to beforehand while refusing to speak to all the others?
I took the decision that the right position for Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary was to make a speech on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and of this House before I discussed the merits of it with anybody else's Foreign Minister. After I had made the speech, I saw the Israeli Foreign Minister twice—twiceand I saw everybody else—every Arab, African and Asian who was concerned in the dispute—at least once, many of them also twice, and I cannot believe that anybody else in my position would have done it any other way round.
Mr. John Hynd: While it would be difficult for anyone to object to the principle of no territorial aggrandisement as a result of the war, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that his words do not mean that he expects Israel to withdraw, during a state of war which she did not wish for but which has been insisted upon throughout by Colonel Nasser, thereby leaving the Gulf of Aqaba and free access to her own territory again to be subject to Arab aggression?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will see that in the speech which I made I dealt with the question of withdrawal. I said publicly, as I said privately, to everyone to whom I spoke, that withdrawal would be unrealistic unless some other issues were faced by other people. That is in the speech and was said privately. On the question of the Gulf of Aqaba, I believe that one of the things that we must do is to get that international seaway, as well as others, opened up on terms that will ensure that no one will again be in an6y doubt as to their continuance and their remaining open.
Mr. Maudling: The Foreign Secretary referred to the response to his speech in New York as being a good one. Is he aware that those of us who were in New York last week did not entirely share that impression? Certainly my reading of the American Press was that they took the remark about territorial aggrandisement as Seine very unbalanced? Will the Foreign Secretary, following up the
102
question immediately before, make it absolutely clear that in talking about territorial aggrandisement he did not rule out the negotiated alterations of frontiers in order to ensure security in future?
Mr. Brown: On the first part of the question, I am surprised that we can both equally misread the American Press as well as the British Press. This was not my view, maybe I am biased. Equally, it was not the view of anyone with me and it was not, with respect, the view of any other politician to whom I talked—American or any other. It is for someone else to judge as between the right hon. Gentleman's impression and mine.
On the latter point, I frankly believe that these are issues that have to come out in the final settlement, which I want to be a lasting settlement. I want it to be acceptable, equitable and justifiable. It will take some little time to reach, and I do not think that I would help very much by prejudging it and offering a view now as to what ought to be done.
Mrs. McKay: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, and will he make it known to our friends that, profit motive apart, this Government appreciate that the Arab nations have long-standing grievances, grievances which should be understood, examined and rectified?
Mr. Brown: I recognise, as I said the other day, that the Arab nations, like Israel, have a case which should be heard, listened to and dealt with. That I do firmly accept. Let me make it absolutely plain that there is no doubt in my mind, or in that of Her Majesty's Government, that Israel has lived under provocations and difficulties which should equally be taken care of. There is nothing more uncomfortable than trying to maintain a genuinely neutral rôle. Like everyone else, I have views and I have to try to relate them to realities. We have to see that both cases are heard, are dealt with and are dealt with fairly—[An HON. MEMBER: "Both cases."]—Having said that, I do not want to be misunderstood as meaning that one case is less strong than the other.
Mr. Sandys: Having talked so big about reopening the Gulf of Aqaba and done so little at a time when this might have prevented the war, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he is hardly

103
in a position to lecture Israel about her future frontiers?
Mr. Brown: I would not know about that. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman sent me another letter, which I can answer. Whether I talk big and do so little is for him to say, but for others to decide. It is not a question of lecturing Israel. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for more messes across the world than any of us will ever achieve, that he would do better on this occasion not to talk in those terms.
Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend accept that some of us welcome the emphasis that he placed on the United Nations when he was in New York? Arising out of that, may I ask what progress he has made with U Thant and the United Nations for getting the adviser into the Middle East as soon as possible? Secondly, can he say what the United Nations can do for the refugee problem?
Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for coming back to this. I believe this to be tremendously important. I discussed it at great length with U Thant. It would be wrong to say that I made a lot of progress, because it is rather early in the day. I discussed it at length with members of the Security Council, and with very many members of the Assembly. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon, who is our Minister there, is carrying on with the negotiations about this, and I hope that we will have worked out, before the end of this Assembly, an arrangement whereby it will come about.
On the question of refugees, it is now being worked on as to how we can arrange for them to be looked after. We have made funds and other comforts available in considerable quantities. We will go on doing that and will do all that we can to ensure that other people do so.
Mr. Walters: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on reports that U.N.W.R.A. can assist only those refugees who were made homeless in 1956? If this is so, it shows a very unsatisfactory situation, and something must be done to rectify it.
Mr. Brown: I do not accept that U.N.W.R.A. should help only those who were made homeless in 1956. One of the things I was trying to say in my opening statement was that I believed that U.N.W.R.A. should be strengthened so that it can work, not only for those, but also for those who have been made homeless as a result of recent hostilities. I think that it has a very great rôle to play in both cases.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has any knowledge of any other nations, besides our own, contributing towards the relief of the devastation and the sordid conditions there? With reference to what he says about a final settlement, can he say who will make it. Will it be the United Nations or will the belligerents settle it?
Mr. Brown: The second question is the Gulf of Aqaba?
Mr. Bellenger: No. My right hon. Friend mentioned a final settlement. Is the final settlement to be made by the United Nations or are the belligerents to do it directly?
Mr. Brown: This again is one of the issues to be worked out. I feel pretty sure, but I am not laying it down as a firm commitment, that it will be better for us all if it is done under United Nations aegis, however the original discussions emerge. I have a feeling that it will have to be a United Nations operation right the way through. Here let me say that the permanent members of the Council, in my view, have a very considerable rôle to play and a very great responsibility to bear. This I said firmly to Mr. Kosygin, this we discussed with our American friends and I discussed it with M. Couve de Murville. It is very true, and it may be that in the end it will be the permanent members of the Council who will be able to help edge this thing through. However it is done, at the end of the day it must be registered as a United Nations decision, and somehow operated and policed by it.
As to what other countries have contributed, quite a number have done so. I regret that I do not carry the names in my mind, but we are certainly not alone. I think that I am right in saying that

105
Canada and Sweden, and quite a number of others have contributed.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: May I ask the Foreign Secretary, in conjunction with other foreign countries, what salvage vessels are we sending out to clear the Canal?
Mr. Brown: At the moment we are not sending any vessels out to clear the Canal, for the reasons I just gave. If the hon. Gentleman would just sit back and think about it for a moment he will see why I cannot think of anything that would be more useless. There are many other nations that are involved with us—
Mr. Clark Hutchison: I said that.
Mr. Brown: —in the freeway of the Canal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take it from me that I am in the closest touch with them about what action to take, how to take it, who should take the lead and in what circumstances. I believe that in this respect I am at least following the right policy.
Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has no reason whatever to apologise for his speech, least of all to hon. Members opposite? Is he further aware that his ideas for a settlement, which are fully in line with the principles of the Charter, will get a wide welcome in this country, as will his statement this afternoon, and particularly his warning about applying double standards to the Arab-Israel struggle? Finally, is he aware that many people are looking to him to keep a steady course against the powerful and unrepresentative criticism and pressure against him?
Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for much of what he said, particularly in view of the disagreements which we have had recently. Whether or not I ever have reason to apologise to the Opposition, certainly it was not my intention to do so today. I will keep as steady a course as I can.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the suggestion that the station and ships' flying logs should be deposited with the United Nations is one which I personally made to the Foreign Secretary over 10 days ago, and since the suggestion that these logs should be deposited in the Library was made only, apparently, after no action
106
had been taken for four days when the Arab propaganda was at its most extreme, can the Foreign Secretary say why there was this delay, which is far more important than the subsequent delay?
Mr. Brown: It is very unusual to publish the logs of one's ships. The Americans have not gone any further than saying that the United Nations can appoint accredited people to look at theirs. We are publishing ours. It is a very, very unusual step to take. It requires a good deal of thought before one takes it. I should not have thought that we should be attacked for doing it too quickly.
Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend tell us which of the nations whose boundaries are to be adjusted as a result of the recent war are likely to be influenced by anything we say as to the decisions they take upon that subject? Would not we perhaps get less ill will if we were to keep rather quiet upon questions in which we have no power to make our influence felt?
Mr. Brown: There is a widely held view, I am told, that if one keeps quiet, people respect one the more. I am bound to tell my hon. and learned Friend that that is not my experience.
Sir G. Nabarro: In his talks with the Egyptians, did the Foreign Secretary have anything to say about the continuing attacks from the Yemen on the South Arabian Federation? Having regard to the heavy losses of British troops last week while he was in New York, what assurances did the right hon. Gentleman collect from Fawzi and others that they would desist in future?
Mr. Brown: I gather that Aden was discussed in my absence. I should be very willing to answer on that matter if somebody would wish me to do so. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, my talks with Dr. Fawzi were very full and covered a wide ground. I certainly would not intend to breach their confidential nature by going into them here.
Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement made it appear that he and the Government were completely opposed to any boundary adjustment which might secure to Israel some greater security against the permanent

107
threat of extermination by armed force by the Arab countries? Can he give us categorical assurance that he did not have that in mind and that the question of boundary adjustments remains open as far as the Government are concerned?
Mr. Brown: I refer my right hon. Friend to what I said. If he will do me the honour of reading it, he will see that his supplementary question could not possibly have been based on what I said.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must—
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Since the right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer questions on Aden, and as I was doing my best to find out what happened about the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, may I ask when he will answer those questions?
Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage. The hon. Lady must find some other way of raising the question.
Dame Irene Ward: Could he just answer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is precious, and we have a lot to do.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker?
I put down a Question for oral Answer to the Minister of Social Security, asking her to give the date of the First Reading of the pensions Bill. The Question appeared on the Order Paper, but before it could be answered the Bill was introduced. I sought leave to substitute "Second" for "First" in the Question and was told that the Second Reading was the responsibility of the Leader of the House. When I asked for the Question to be transferred to the Leader of the House, the Minister responsible, I was told that this was not possible.
I understand that there is no recorded Ruling on this point, and, since it may limit the right of a Member to question a Minister, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker,
108
to give a Ruling for the guidance of Members so that it may be quoted in Erskine May.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman raised this point with me privately but wishes me to rule on it in the House. May I say in passing how much I appreciate the fact that when Members are advised by the Table on Questions they usually accept that advice. If a Question is referred to the Speaker for a Ruling, they usually accept a private Ruling.
The short answer on the Ruling which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to give is that his original Question dealt with the proposed date for the presentation and First Reading of a Bill, which is a matter of Departmental policy, and therefore within the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Bill. The Question was perfectly proper. Later, however, the Question had to be altered so as to refer to the proposed date of the Second Reading of the Bill. This would make the Question a matter of the arrangement of Government business, which is within the sphere of responsibility of the Leader of the House and not the Minister of Social Security. A regular opportunity is already given of putting questions on business to the Leader of the House every Thursday, and my predecessor consistently held that such Questions should not go on the Order Paper as well, for this would allow the same Questions to be asked twice over. I should at all times be reluctant to depart from the Rulings of my predecessors without good cause.
The House will recall that over the last two years complaints have been made about the difficulty of obtaining oral Answers to Questions, and the problem has been considered twice by the Procedure Committee. It therefore scarcely seems to me to be the time even to consider a reversal of my predecessor's Ruling, which would have the effect of placing an entirely new class of Questions on the Order Paper. This would make it still more difficult to get oral Answers to Questions.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to my point of order. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your courteous public reply, because I know that you always have the interests of private Members at heart.

DIVISION No. 387 (CORRECTION)
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. On Friday, in Division No. 387, which is referred to in column 2155 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and myself were the Tellers for the Ayes. We have been printed as the Tellers for the Noes, thus exactly reversing our views. In view of the strength of our views about the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, can have the matter put into good order at once.
Mr. Speaker: I realise how grave this error was. I will see that it is corrected.

DIVISION No. 387 (CORRECTION)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]
  *Note: This correction has been made in col. 2155.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (DEFICIT)
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling the first speaker in the debate, perhaps I may announce that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and some of his hon. Friends—in line 1, leave out from 'regrets' to end and add:
  'the financial situation of British Railways and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the steps being taken, together with the British Railways Board, and with the help of the Joint Steering Group, to identify and provide for the socially necessary lines; to give to British Railways a realistic efficiency target; to modernise freight handling; and to enable the railways to respond to changing traffic demands'.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the mounting deficit of British Railways and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take measures to bring about the elimination of the working deficit and the increase in productivity that would, as a result of the associated lower costs and lower manpower requirements, make a significant contribution to the nation's economic growth.
  I regret that this debate should take place in an atmosphere of an important labour dispute between British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen. The object of the Motion was not particularly to comment upon or to discuss that dispute. It was put down because of our concern at the announcement by the Minister of Transport that the railway deficit was likely to increase this year.
  All that I would like to say about the present dispute is that I hope that it will be speedily settled, that good sense will be seen in the interests of the success of the new terminal, and certainly that a settlement will be reached between the management of British Rail and the unions without any need for Government intervention. I regard it as vital and important that the management should be respected as the negotiating body and that on major disputes its place should

  111
  not constantly be taken by the Minister or by the Government in coming to an ultimate settlement.
  The reason for this debate was the news, given by the Minister a few weeks ago in the House, that she expected the deficit this year to increase, and, secondly, the fact that the Minister is, we know, drafting her proposals for legislation in the autumn, and that during the next three or four weeks she will be considering the report of the Joint Steering Group. We regard it, therefore, as a good time both to express our concern at the present situation and to make our suggestions about the considerations which the Minister should take into account in drafting her proposals for action in the autumn.
  The Motion is worded to remind the Government of their own proposals. The words which the Government by their Amendment would delete are primarily the words which were included in the National Plan. We took the wording of our Motion from the National Plan, Chapter 12, which, dealing with transport, states in paragraph 12:
  "The elimination of the working deficit and the increased productivity, and the associated lower costs and lower manpower requirements, would be a significant contribution to the nation's economic growth objectives."
  Earlier in that same National Plan, the Government stated—and this, it will be remembered, was a year after they came into office, at a time when they knew what the economic situation was and when they were well aware of the current state of British Rail:
  "British Railways … estimate that they should be able to eliminate the working deficit by 1970, provided that, in addition to early inauguration of freight liner services,

  (a) substantial progress continues to be made in implementing closure proposals,

  (b) a start is made within the period with the process of concentrating on selected trunk routes,

  (c) co-operation of the unions is secured in increasing productivity and in particular on the question of train manning."

  We want, therefore, to know why the Government seemingly have not been successful in achieving those objectives, which they stated as their objectives in the National Plan in the autumn of 1965.
  I remind the House of the position concerning the deficit. At the peak period of
  112
  the railway deficit in 1962, it reached £159 million. In 1963 it was reduced to £133 million and in 1964 to £120 million. In 1965 it went up again to £132 million. We were, however, comforted at that time by the forecast, which was made by the Railways Board and was repeated in May, 1966, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, that in 1966 the deficit would fall to £115 million, which would have been the lowest deficit for six years.
  There was, therefore, every indication that the enormous investment in British Railways which had taken place in the previous decade and the basic proposals made by Lord Beeching when he was Chairman of British Rail were beginning to have the downward trend in the deficit which we all would like to see. Alas, however, the target for 1966, which was repeated even in May of that year, was not reached. The deficit did not fall but increased. Now we are told by the Minister that it will be increasing again.
  The magnitude of the deficit is alarming. There is on both sides an acceptance that when people start talking in figures of £140 million, they are the type of figure which is rather beyond normal comprehension. It is, therefore, easy for these enormous figures to have no real meaning.
  When one considers that a deficit of that size means that for every route mile of British Rail there is a deficit of £10,000 a year, when one realises that if the deficit had to be financed in the form of a National Insurance stamp type of taxation every family of four would be paying 4s. a week simply to meet the deficit on British Rail, and when one also recognises some of the fundamental statistics concerning British Rail, one realises the urgent need for action.
  There is, for example, the statistic that in the past decade, by both Governments, there has been an enormous capital investment programme, a total of £1,200 million having been invested in new plant and equipment and new capital development during that time. One would naturally hope that with such an investment there would be a good return and an improving financial position. One would particularly hope that the labour content of British Rail's costs would have been substantially

  113
  reduced as a result of the modernisation which has taken place.
  It is, however, an alarming fact that of every £100 received by British Rail, £77 is needed to meet wages and salaries alone. One would not expect this figure to be so high after an investment programme amounting to £1,200 million, but we have not as yet received the benefit in terms of lowering the labour intensity of the industry as a result of our plans.
  Certainly, there has been a substantial reduction in the total labour force, to which will refer presently. Certainly, there has been a welcome rise in railway wages and salaries. Hon. Members, on both sides, recognise that wages and salaries on the railways were behind wage and salary levels elsewhere, and adjustment has been made as a result. Having granted all that, however, I feel that there has not been sufficient increase in productivity in relation to the enormous capital investment programme.
  Part of that failure has been due to the Government. For example, in February, 1965—admittedly, six weeks before a General Election—the Prime Minister and the present Foreign Secretary intervened in the pay dispute and eliminated from the agreement between British Rail and the unions all mention of productivity agreements. That was negotiated over the heads of the management and it resulted in all the productivity agreements that the management required being eliminated from the settlement.
  Something similar has happened this year. In April, when there were further threats of a go-slow, the Government again intervened, this time by the Minister of Labour. Once again, no agreements were obtained concerning improved productivity. There were simply vague promises for the future.
  Today's debate could take the form of discussing who had done more for the railways in the past and who had helped to modernise them. There could be a dispute as to whether we on this side were right in our past legislation or whether the Government are right in their forthcoming legislation. I would much rather concentrate, however, on looking at the basic proposals which are before us for endeavouring to tackle the problem.
  114
  The Amendment draws attention to three factors in Government policy. The first is the Joint Steering Group, which the Government set up to look into the finances of the industry. In this context, it is important to recognise the definition that was given by the Minister of Transport last February, when she said:
  "The Group is reviewing many aspects of railway policy, not only the identification and costing of the unremunerative services but also methods of improving efficiency, new ideas on management structure and the long-term financial prospects, all of which are essential if we are to tackle the problem of the deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 1732.]
  One was encouraged by those terms of reference. One is now profoundly discouraged; first, at the Minister now saying that she has no intention of publishing the report of that Committee—in other words, that it will be available to nobody but herself—and, secondly, to have found that major decisions have been taken about the future of British Rail before the report of the Joint Steering Group has come out. I refer particularly to the decision to go ahead with the stabilising of 11,000 route miles. That decision could not have been better summarised than it was in a leader in The Times on 10th May, which stated:
  "… but it was sheer stupidity to stabilize the network at 11,000 miles before current investigations by the Minister's joint steering group were complete, and when two of the railways' best traffics, coal and ore, are going into a sharp decline".
  The possible good which that Committee could do has been completely undermined. First, we are told that nobody is to know the results of its deliberations—because its report will not be published—and, secondly, we realise that major decisions of this type have been taken before the completion of that inquiry.
  The Government Amendment goes on to refer to the necessity to modernise freight handling, and the most basic proposal about this is the forthcoming National Freight Authority. I do not believe that that has any contribution to make to modernising freight handling. From all that we know about this body, it will do much more to undermine management confidence in British Rail

  115
  than to modernise freight handling. The Amendment then refers to the need
  "… to enable the railways to respond to changing traffic demands".
  It is remarkable that a Government who have stipulated that there is to be a stabilised 11,000 route miles should then refer to having a system which can
  "… respond to changing traffic demands".
  This search for the stabilisation of a dynamic industry like the railways is a mistake. The management of every industry would like to have a stable position, in which they know that no further change is necessary. But the realities of economic life are such that no great industry, least of all an industry like the railways—which is dependent on the fortunes of many other industries—can have a fixed and stabilised position.
  When one examines the proposals of the Government to improve the efficiency and performance of British Rail, one finds that they come down to two basic considerations; first, the stabilising of 11,000 route miles—which, in itself, I do not think will contribute to efficiency—and, secondly, a National Freight Authority, which certainly the management of British Rail did not ask for, which the management of the Transport Holding Company has not asked for—and which, it has pointed out, is already having an adverse effect on its present activities—and which only last week the Confederation of British Industries condemned. These are the basic proposals inherent in Government policy.
  Having said that, I turn to what our proposals would be. I will make six constructive suggestions about the action that should take place now to tackle this serious problem. The first is the need for an up-to-date review of manpower requirements. We have witnessed a considerable reduction in the labour force of the railways, and over the years it has been reduced from 515,000 to 365,000. I pay credit to the unions and management for the manner in which this reduction has taken place. It is, by any measure, a substantial reduction.
  Having reduced it to that level, there can be no doubt—and this will be agreed by all who are aware of the current problems of British Rail—that there is need for still further substantial reductions.
  116
  The Chairman of British Rail, in a recent speech to the unions, stated the need for further savings and improvements and said that they could come about only as a result of manpower reductions. However, I fear that at present both sides are trying to tackle this problem of overmanning by phasing out over a quite long period of years, which I do not believe to be in the interests of the railwaymen or of management. In a recent, I presume a well-informed, article in the Sun, Mr. Geoffrey Goodman wrote:
  "At Bristol Mr. Donald Gronow, the depot engineer, told me he was having to carry 66 men—30 per cent. of the total—more than he needed. The majority of them are between 18 and 40 and clinging to their jobs in the hope that something will turn up. 'It will not,' said Mr. Gronow. But carrying them costs us well over £50,000 a year. Firemen average £18 a week and drivers about £28. Work it out for yourself.' Sometimes these men do a spare turn on the footplate. Sometimes they help to clean the locomotives. ('But in fact there is really no cleaning to do,' says Donald Gronow.) Sometimes they sit in the canteen waiting for a call. This is happening in locomotive depots all over the rail system, according to the Railways Board."
  An example of that type—and I obviously cannot say whether or not that example is true—shows what a responsible journalist considers to be—
  Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman recognises the interest I have in footplate and locomotive men. Is he aware that that quotation shows the colossal ignorance that exists about working arrangements and manning necessities at a locomotive depot; the spare turns, duty and other work that must be catered for?
  Mr. Walker: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of this subject. I was not quoting the view of a politician but the reported view of someone who is in the management side of British Rail. Few people will deny that there are considerable overmanning problems.
  It is in the interests of British Rail that we should discover what real working force is required for a modern railway system. I believe that present plans envisage a substantial reduction in the labour force over the years and I would prefer to see it reduced quickly, though certainly generously. I would criticise no generosity in redundancy payments

  117
  and I agree that every facility for retraining should be made available. I hope the Railways Board, which has stated that there is overmanning—the Chairman of the Board has said precisely that—will be allowed to tackle this problem quickly and that this overmanning will not be allowed to paralyse effective management.
  There cannot be anything but overmanning in the administrative set-up of the present British Rail organisation when one considers that in London there is the headquarters of British Rail nationally, with three regional headquarters also situated in London. There must be a considerable amount of administrative duplication in this set-up. The sooner problems such as this are tackled, and the whole system streamlined, the better. Hence, the first need is a manpower review; and then action to get the right manpower force.
  My second suggestion is the negotiating of a completely new wage structure for the industry. When one examines the detail of the present wage structure, one finds that it is the result of 50 years of wage negotiations, bits and pieces having been added on here and there in an effort to bring it up to date. It must be brought completely up to date, instead of management and unions having to operate within this old structure.
  Trying to be objective, I cannot believe it to be in the interests of the men to continue with two unions with specific interests, as at present. I fully agree with British Rail's proposal that the two should get together. At present, we have cases of bonuses paid to freight drivers that are related to the days when firemen received bonuses because of the relation between mileage and the number of shovelfulls of coal that had to be handled. We have a position in which drivers doing difficult shunting jobs are paid far less in bonus than those doing the fairly simple long run. There is a fundamental need to negotiate a new wage structure, and also a new apprenticeship scheme.
  Thirdly, much more must be made of British Rail's assets. I very much regret that Government policy, for other reasons, has resulted in British Rail not being able to exploit its property to the full potential. I very much regret that developments and improvements at rail terminals have not
  118
  taken place because, in terms of congestion problems, to have vast buildings at railway stations is a way of handling the travelling public with the minimum of congestion on the roads. I hope that British Rail will very quickly be given the go-ahead fully to develop its property potential and exploit commercially those areas where crowds of people are potential consumers of goods.
  Fourthly, there is need to recruit better management. It was a great mistake on the Government's part to halve the salary of the chairman of British Rail when Lord Beeching left. One of the most important things done previously was to create the precedent that if we wanted a top man for a top job we paid the full price. During his period as Chairman, Lord Beeching was well worth the salary he obtained. Either the present Chairman is worth the salary that Lord Beeching was paid, in which case let him be paid it or, if he is not worth it, find someone who is worth it. To halve the Chairman's salary was a basic mistake.
  If I have one major criticism of the period of Lord Beeching's chairmanship it is of his failure to persuade the Treasury to allow the salary structure for top management which is needed if we are to attract the best people in management to this great industry. Although British Rail is recruiting some high-calibre people from the universities as a result of the electrification programme and some of the exciting new things that are happening, there is an alarming indication that it is, perhaps, also losing quite a few men of good calibre. I wonder how many of the 9,000 salaried staff who left during the course of last year were people whom British Rail management was sorry to lose.
  If we are to recruit the best in management to this great industry, the Minister must arrange the relationship between the Ministry and the Railways Board on the basis that management is allowed to manage. As it is, in many investment decisions, some of them quite small, the Ministry intervenes, and when it comes to other developments the Ministry is always there. We do not know the Minister's specific proposals about special subsidies for special lines for social reasons. We do not know their form or base, but I plead with her, in this respect, not to put things on a basis that will mean more

  119
  interference with day-to-day management than now exists. We will not attract people of the best management calibre if they constantly face the intervention by a Minister and civil servants. The real task is to select the type of management in which the Minister can have confidence: there is then no need for interference.
  In my fifth suggestion I disagree with the Minister. I believe that the whole freightliner system should be retained and developed by British Railways. To take away this exciting new development is bad for the morale of railway management. I do not believe that management wants it. I do not believe that the unions want it. I do not believe that the users of transport want it. It takes from British Rail a tremendous opportunity for expansion—and for what purpose? Seemingly, it is purely for the purpose of linking it with the 5 per cent. of haulage that is owned by the Transport Holding Company—an efficient, commercially-run company that would certainly happily link up on a day-to-day basis with British Rail, as it certainly does already.
  When the original reports on the freightliner trains were prepared it was stated that three-fifths of the traffic that could be expected for them would come from professional hauliers. I believe that by setting up a national freight authority we are, if anything, frightening away those professional hauliers who should be bringing business to British Rail.
  If the concept of the freightliner trains is correct commercially, as I think it is, if we can take goods from Glasgow to London more cheaply and more efficiently by freightliner trains than by road, and I think that in the majority of cases we can, then to negotiate with hauliers of all descriptions to carry their goods at a proper economic rate is the best way to get the maximum use out of the freightliner trains. I hope that the Government will think again about this concept and allow British Rail to develop it fully.
  The figures I quote may be slightly out of date, but in the original Beeching Report an investment of £100 million in freightliner trains was expected to show a profit of £18 million a year and to eliminate a loss of £32 million a year. That means that if the freightliner trains
  120
  were to be developed in that way it would improve railway finances by no less than £50 million. It is criminal to take away such a potential as the freightliner terminals. British Rail should be seeking ways to co-operate with other interests and other industries.
  That brings me to my sixth point. Instead of British Rail being forced, as it is now, to look at ways of eliminating certain types of competition or of acquiring it into its ownership, it should make a serious search for useful and fruitful co-operation with other industries. For example, I should like to see British Rail making more progress with the shipping companies in containerisation. Let us have plenty of joint types of establishment and work in together. If British Rail is to continue in the hovercraft business—and I am not quite certain that it is right that it should—why should it not get together with other operators in the hovercraft business who, perhaps, have greater know-how in the management of hovercraft than British Rail itself has at present?
  Do not let British Rail shy off from the Tartan Arrow technique of joining companies where private management and private interest is retained, to the benefit of both sides. Let us see British Rail collaborating with those in the civil engineering industry and sub-contracting some of the work more properly theirs. Let it endeavour to collaborate with motorists in providing parking facilities to a much greater extent than is the case at present.
  I recall the words of Mr. Len Neal, who is heavily engaged at present in difficult negotiations. Referring to the conflict at Stratford, he said that collaboration with the forwarding agencies, not competing with them, is the way for the new terminals to succeed. That is a principle that can be applied in quite a number of areas.
  What is needed to tackle the railway deficit in a more dynamic way than it is now being tackled is this series of practical suggestions: an end to overmanning, a proper wage structure, better management better paid, full development of the freightliner train, full exploitation by British Rail of its assets, and a proper partnership with other parts of the industry. I think that it is the opposite to the policies the Government will

  121
  pursue, because I fear that they will take away the freightliner train and leave British Rail with the rump of the less profitable traffic. At this moment management in British Rail is certainly depressed at this prospect. Labour relations have certainly known better times than the present. The deficit is mounting.
  This is a tragic picture for what potentially is a great industry of the future. As one who certainly holds the view that Britain's greatness in the future depends on ach eying a new commercial greatness, I wish to see practical policies to assist the railways to make their full contribution. Because at present I do not detect those policies taking place, because at present one fears that other considerations are entering into the decisions of the Government in the creation of the National Freight Authority, and because I believe a dramatic change in atmosphere is called for, I move this Motion this afternoon.
  5.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move to leave out from 'regrets' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'the financial situation of British Railways and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the steps being taken, together with the British Railways Board, and with the help of the Joint Steering Group, to identify and provide for the socially necessary lines; to give to British Railways a realistic efficiency target; to modernise freight handling; and to enable the railways to respond to changing traffic demands'.
  Despite, or perhaps because of, the background against which this debate is taking place, I think it could be a very useful one because naturally we are all concerned, and must be concerned, with the financial position of British Railways. We all ought to be anxious to see our railways play an effective part in a modern and co-ordinated transport system. I very much welcome the fact that, perhaps for the first time, from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) we had a series of concrete and constructive points. I listened to them with very great attention and made a careful note of them.
  The first thing which struck me was not only that they were too limited in scope, but that in reference to about three-quarters of his points he was knocking at an open door. It is remarkable
  122
  that the Opposition should intend to divide the House and censure the Government for not having done certain things which, if the hon. Member dares to be specific, he must admit we have in fact been doing for a large number of months. What does he think is the purpose of the work of the Joint Steering Group between ourselves and the British Railways Board if it is not to enable us to have a forward look at British Railways' difficulties, including the implications for manpower, in fact the very up-to-date review of manpower requirements for which he asked? What about his demand that there should be negotiated a completely new wage structure? A little earlier in his speech the hon. Member dismissed with contempt what the Prime Minister set on foot following those long discussions with the N.U.R. when, I am glad to say, a railway strike was averted. What we set on foot was the negotiation of a completely new wage structure. It is going on now and it is not only a question of pay but of pay linked with productivity. Of course we agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friends who are interested in the industry would agree, that the present structure has developed piecemeal, is full of anomalies and ought to be overhauled. This is going on.
  The hon. Member complained that we have not had results so far, but surely he has more imagination than that. Surely he can appreciate that we are dealing here in a field which bristles with complexities and difficulties, which are made all the greater because we are dealing with an industry for which he is calling for still more far-reaching manpower cuts. Everybody knows that that is not the easiest atmosphere in which these negotiations could be carried on.
  I could refer to his point about making more use of the assets of British Rail. Of course we encourage British Rail to make the fullest use of its assets, but we cannot do that to the tune of enabling it to cut across the Government's carefully planned dispersal policy.
  Take the need to recruit better staff. To double the Chairman's salary might be attractive, but I do not think that that is a sufficiently profound study of what is implied in management. This is going on in the Joint Steering Group. The hon. Member said that the Ministry should leave British Railways management to

  123
  manage, but I would remind him that this is a unique review. We are not bringing in an outside body and imposing an examination on the British Railways Board. This is a joint effort between us and British Railways management. British Railways is the first to welcome it—why? Because here we are up against a fundamental problem. The hon. Member made no reference at all to the kernel of that problem. The kernel of the problem is that, even when we have done all that, we recognise that we shall not have got rid of the British Railways deficit.
  Here we have to decide what sort of size and shape and rùle of a railway system we want. This is the question I have asked the hon. Member time and again and which he has dodged. He dodged it again this afternoon. It is the key question to which we are waiting an answer. Without it we cannot have a coherent railway policy. The question I put to the hon. Member is: do the Opposition believe that British Railways should be expected to pay its way without Government help?
  This is cardinal. This was the principle which underlay the 1962 Transport Act, which enshrined the expectation that British Railways would break even by 1970. It is this that I have been in process of re-examining and rejecting in order to get the only basis which I think will be workable and acceptable, whether we are thinking of the social needs of the country or the economic ones. I want the hon. Member to let us know the answer to this.
  If the Opposition believe that the railways should be expected to pay their way without Government help, then do the Opposition believe it is my duty as Minister of Transport to be pressing ahead now to that greatly reduced level of route mileage envisaged in the succession of Beeching Reports? Do they believe that we should now be in process of reducing the passenger route miles and the railway freight miles overall from the figures we have established in the network of 11,000 to 12,000 down to 8,000 and less, which is the only basis on which we could begin to get commercial viability?
  Do the Opposition believe that we should have in this country merely a
  124
  skeleton railway network? If so, it is time we had the abandonment of the sort of hypocrisy we have from the benches opposite about railway closures. Every time I accept some pruning in some local area as unfortunately inescapable, an hon. Member opposite puts down a Parliamentary Question, or writes a letter to me, or attacks me in his local newspaper. We had some discussion earlier this afternoon about the need to avoid double talk. Let us begin by avoiding double talk on one of the issues—
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely) rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The debate has been very much curtailed, and I wish to give backbenchers a chance.
  How are we to get all these fundamental changes of modernisation or of manpower contraction, which we know must still come about, if we are having this double talk about the railways? Having studied the requirements we have for railway passenger services, having discussed these with the regional economic planning councils, with the local authorities, with the T.U.C.C.s, and so on, I believe that we are right to make an assessment of the sort of mileage we need and then to say that, as far as can be foreseen—nothing is permanent in this transitory life—that is the basis on which we will stand.
  If hon. Members opposite want to attack us about closures, they should make up their minds; but it appears that they cannot do so. A short while ago in the House, I think in the last debate, they were reeling off figures to maintain that I was closing more railway lines than ever they had. They had better make up their minds. Do they, or do they not, want the Beeching objective? I do not. Perhaps they will let me know where they stand. If they are not happy about railway closures, are they prepared to support an amendment to the Transport Act, 1962? If they will not support such an amendment, why not?
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke Sir H. Legge-Bourke rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mrs. Castle: No. The hon. Gentleman will get plenty of chance to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. There are barely two hours

  125
  left for the debate. I cannot afford to give way to interruptions. Who gets the chance to speak must depend on whom Mr. Speaker selects. The point can no doubt be answered in the winding-up speech.
  Are the Opposition prepared to support an amendment to the 1962 Act? The hon. Member for Worcester gave us a lot of talk about the need for efficiency. Does he really believe that it helps railway efficiency to saddle the operating deficit with the cost of keeping open railway lines that even Conservative Members of Parliament maintain are socially necessary? I was interested, on reading today's very excellent article in The Times, to find that in that quarter at any rate I have support for my policy. It says, referring to the work of the Joint Steering Group:
  "It is better to define subsidies in this way rather than to provide an unquantified excuse for deficits piling up."
  This is the whole purpose of my railway policy, to define the lines the country wants kept open, then to cost the burden to the community of so doing, and to put those payments in a separate account, thus giving British Railways an efficiency target.
  Do the Opposition want the British Railways Board or the Government to ride roughshod over the men's anxieties in an industry which has suffered a reduction of 142,000 jobs in the last four years and where still further reductions will be necessary? I am not running away from that any more than the Board is. Containerisation alone is having its impact on manpower needs throughout the whole transport field. If we are to give the men the standard of life we want them to have, this and other factors must be constantly borne in mind. If we are to modernise, there are implications here for manpower.
  Do not let anyone in the House underestimate the difficulties involved in edging the men in the industry forward on this difficult path. There is nothing easier or more superficial than to jibe about the mounting deficit. As The Times said this morning, there is no material here for petty debating points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] The truth is that the deficit has been mounting over since 1955, the last year in which the Board
  126
  broke even on operating account. It is the operating account which is our real guide to where action is not succeeding and where we need to direct our policies. The capital account is influenced at various stages by the different capital obligations and different kinds of capital reconstruction which have taken place.
  The working deficit of British Railways rose steadily from £l6½ million in 1956 to £87 million in 1961. The Transport Act, 1962 was supposed to solve all that. It was the Tory panacea—" Wind up the British Transport Commission. Let us have a capital reconstruction. Bring in the Beeching economies and we will break even by 1970". The 1962 Act has cured nothing and the operating deficit has remained pretty steady at about the £70 million to £80 million a year mark.
  I have been perfectly frank with the House in saying that the deficit for 1967 looks like being higher than last year's. In 1966 the deficit on operating account was £71½ million. The signs are that it will be up this year. If we are to find a remedy, we must analyse the causes. I want to take some time with the House in examining the break-down of the operating loss.
  On the passenger side, receipts have risen steadily in the past four years. They were £6 million higher in 1966 than they were in 1965. I am glad to say that up to May of this year there is a further improvement of about £1 million.
  Sir William Robson Brown: Higher prices.
  Mrs. Castle: Not merely higher prices. Let us give credit to the Board where credit is due. Let us give credit for the great improvement in the inter-city services. There has been a dramatic rise in revenues and receipts from the electrified services. I hope we can all rejoice in that. This is one of the hopeful signs—the brighter spots—to which the leading article in The Times refers. It is true that we are getting increased revenues from the inter-city services.
  There is still a substantial loss on stopping and suburban services. Out of the total deficit last year of £134 million —that is not just the operating deficit, but the total one—the stopping and suburban services accounted for about £50 million. The only answer is to decide

  127
  which of these unremunerative lines are socially necessary—this we have done in the railway network plan—and then to compute the cost of these services to the Board, which is now being done by the Joint Steering Group.
  Once again I want to pay a tribute to all those who are working in the Joint Steering Group, not only to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is doing a superb job in chairing the Group, but to the independent outside consultants who joined us, and to the members of the Board, in at last coming to grips with the problem, in at last looking at the unremunerative lines, in at last deciding which of them are socially necessary, and in at last trying to put a cost on them to see where there might be operating economies which would not reduce the quality of the service. There is much of be done by operating techniques, by singling of the track, which, combined with signalling, can give better services, in some cases at very greatly reduced cost. All these things are being examined very carefully.
  A special Economic Unit in my Ministry will help me in assessing the case for a grant in each case. In appropriate cases, where we think it would be valuable in helping us to make a decision, we shall carry out cost-benefit studies to get an assessment of which of these lines we should retain. Having done this, we shall then be able to say, "This is a cost which ought to be borne openly by the community in a separate account and be met by a specific grant from the community".
  Do the Opposition prefer closures to the payment of these grants? That is crucial. When we are talking about the size of the deficit, we are talking here about £50 million. How would the Opposition meet it? Would they meet it by closing these railway lines, or would they meet it, as we intend, by a carefully costed and assessed open subsidy?
  The real worsening is on the freight side, where both tonnages and receipts have been on the decline. The less favourable prospects for 1967 are due to this. Of the £10 million decline in receipts up to May 1967, no less than £8½ million is due to the decline in the traditional traffics of coal, coke, iron and steel. Unfortunately, over 80 per cent.
  128
  of British Railways' total freight tonnage and nearly half of its receipts are in these traditional traffics. This is something which is beyond the Railways Board's control. If natural gas is found beneath the North Sea, one cannot blame the British Railways Board for the decline in coal traffics which may ensure. The Board has been making Herculean efforts to offset the loss, first, by keeping down working expenses, despite increased wages and other costs, and second, by joining with the Ministry in the joint survey in order to help us all to adjust to the long-term trends.
  Perhaps I should say at this point that, although it is not intended to publish the group's reports as such, as they may well cover discussion of the Board's organisation, structure and commercial policy, matters which it would not be appropriate to publish in full, the implications of the reports will nevertheless be made available to the House, because it is my intention to base my legislation firmly upon them.
  The Board is trying to offset the loss of traditional traffics by expanding the freightliner service. We are all glad, I am sure, that, whereas in January, 1966, the Board was handling only 350 containers a week, in December, 1966, it was handling 4,600 containers. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the effect of the National Freight Organisation, I ask him to realise that the effect of the coming of the container has been, technically, to reintegrate movements by road and rail. They are not apart now; the separation, division and competition between the publicly owned road sector and the publicly owned rail sector is an anomaly and out of date. This is why we intend to reintegrate them in the N.F.O. British Rail stands only to benefit. By being able to offer in the public sector a fully integrated door-to-door movement by road and rail, we can visualise an expansion of traffics greater than if the reintegration did not take place.
  The very importance of the freightliners to British Railways in this changing situation makes the dispute at Stratford all the more tragic. I was delighted, and so was the House, when railwaymen, after long months of doubt and argument, dropped their opposition to open terminals. It is important to make clear to

  129
  the House that they are still willing to have file private haulier come into the ordinary freightliner terminal. They have not reneged on that principle, and they are standing firm by that agreement.
  I understand the railwaymen's opposition to private terminals where the road haulier runs a private freightliner service in opposition to British Railways owned freightliner services. That was the basis of the opposition in regard to Tartan Arrow. Then men were able to say, legitimately, I think, that there was absolutely no guarantee that Tartan Arrow running in competition with their own liner service would not take traffic from them and, therefore, unfairly undermine their jobs.
  In the case of Stratford, however, we have a new development. We have not just a terminal here but what is, virtually, an inland port, where forwarding agents have their own private tenancies within railway property. As we know, the forwarding agents do a comprehensive job. They see goods through Customs, they clear health checks in the case of perishable goods, they have to deal with all the documentation, they have to offer a personal service to the customer, they have to know which piece of traffic to promote ahead of another and to which to give priority.
  If the railways' Continental business is to expand, if we are to have an increasing amount of shipborne traffics coming not only by ship and container but straight from ship on to rail and so to be distributed, the forwarding agents must be given facilities in this new type of inland port to handle their business as they think best. These private tenancies are like a private siding at a mine or factory. This is a concept on which British Railways were built and to which railwaymen have never had opposition in the past. There would have been no railway industry if they had. There is no argument in the case of Stratford about forwarding agents having their private tenancies and premises there. The argument is only about whether they should handle the goods. The agents have made perfectly clear that, if they are to give to the customer the service which they feel they are obliged to give, they must be free to employ and to organise their own staffs. I am sorry to tell the House that we are in deadlock on this important matter.
  130
  I had a long discussion with the chair- man of the Railways Board again this morning. We have gone anxiously and fully into all the implications, making quite sure that neither is he nor am I in any way cutting across our joint policy of trying to guarantee expanding employment to railwaymen. I am satisfied that the fullest consultation has taken place at every stage over many months, both locally and nationally.
  I am satisfied, too, that the chairman of the Railways Board has leaned over backwards in making concessions to the men concerned. He has offered that all the staff affected by the move from the terminals which have closed will be employed at Stratford. He has gone further and said, so confident is he that this will be a growth point for British Railways, that he is prepared to guarantee that the total number of established jobs for railwaymen in the terminal would be maintained. Indeed, there will be more British Railways jobs at this terminal than agents jobs.
  Unfortunately, the unions insist on a new principle, that all loading and unloading at Stratford and new depots of similar kind must be done by railway men. This is a totally new principle. For many years, without union complaint, agents' own staff have been loading and unloading all their export traffic at the old depots, and they did not unload imports only because all these came into the Chobham Farm depot where the agents had no premises.
  If this new principle were accepted, it could have quite astonishing consequences. One might as well say that coal wagons at railway sidings should not be loaded or unloaded by coal merchants, or that Post Office letter mail should not be loaded or unloaded by G.P.O. staff. Equally logically, one might say that all jobs at these inland ports should be done by dockers, because, after all, these inland ports are taking away or threatening to take away many a docker's job by carrying freight through in containers right to the heart of the inland port. I have no doubt that the Railways Board has done its utmost to meet the legitimate anxieties of these railwaymen and that it cannot accede to their demand for this new principle.
  I should like the House to send out a message to these men tonight, saying that

  131
  we, of course, understand their concern for their future and their jobs, saying that it is the intention of the House that we shall have a stable and thriving railway system, and that railwaymen will have their full share in the employment at these new growth points. Already, with the seven freightliner depots in operation, we have created 500 new railway jobs. Nine more depots are planned, offering at least 300 more jobs. But if we go on like this, we shall have no growth with which to guarantee the employment of the future.
  The freightliner services into London are at a standstill. There is a danger of contracts being permanently lost, such as the contract for bringing Aberdeen beef into London by freightliner and that for bringing steel traffic from South Wales to London, and once those contracts are lost there is no guarantee that we can get them back onto rail.
  I welcome the debate because we are right to have a sense of urgency about the railway deficit. Of course, we must attack it in a planned and efficient way. We must say to railwaymen that if the country is to put its money behind a railway system they must lose no time in ensuring that that system is used to the utmost. I therefore hope that the men will now agree that they should get back to work, and let us get on with the job of expanding traffics on rail which alone can guarantee their jobs.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. Lady sits down, may I say that, while I endorse her concluding remarks, when she asked a specific question earlier I sought to intervene but she would not give way. She will be aware, as is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that there has already been one closure in my constituency and that we are now threatened with another. Would she accept that before we start scrapping any of the routes originally proposed to be abolished by Lord Beeching we should at least not start approving closures which were not included in his plan?
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: I propose to speak very briefly, because the debate must be short, and I do not want to restrict the opportunities of other
  132
  back-benchers to speak on this important subject.
  In her opening remarks, the Minister congratulated the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on the constructive aspects of his speech. I listened to it with great care because I wondered if we should hear a declaration by the Opposition this afternoon that if they became a Government again they intended to go back to the original Beeching Plan. The electorate are greatly concerned about this matter. We remember how Phase One of the Beeching Plan called for a large number of closures, particularly in areas of high unemployment and under-development. For that reason, I and the Liberal Party opposed the plan when we realised its consequence for the outlying and under-developed areas.
  I remember, in particular, how Phase One would have affected Cornwall if it had been put into effect. There would not have been a single branch line left in the county. When Phase Two was eventually published we saw that the Westbury Loop, the main fast link to the West Country, would also have been abolished, and the main line throughout Cornwall, from Plymouth to Penzance, would have become no more than a branch line.
  I was so concerned about this that I went with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to see Lord Beeching just before he retired from office and asked him bluntly whether Phase Three of his plan would have shown the abolition of the main line throughout Cornwall. He said that it would, and that there would have been no railway from Plymouth to Penzance.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that was not what Lord Beeching told me? As I have mentioned in the House before, he told me the contrary.
  Mr. Bessell: I am aware of this. As I told the hon. Gentleman in private, and I repeat it now in public, Lord Beeching said categorically to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North—we saw him together—that the line from Plymouth to Penzance would have been closed under Phase Three of the Beeching Plan.

  133
  In any case, under Phase Two it was shown as no more than a branch line, with all existing branch lines in Cornwall closed. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) has been consistent in his support for the Beeching Plan. I do not quarrel with this. I am only saying why I oppose it.
  If it had been possible to provide enough money to give the West Country, and other parts of England which are under-populated and have special problems, the kind of road development which is necessary for their economic growth, it might have been possible to carry out something on the lines of the Beeching Plan. But in the absence of that kind of expenditure it would have caused the maximum hardship to the people who live in such areas, and prevented any hope of regional development and their growth in the way we all want to see. These are the realistic facts of life, and therefore any suggestion that there should be a return to the Beeching Plan would not only be a disaster to the under-developed areas but would completely ruin any possibility of regional development on the lines envisaged by the Government.
  I cannot deal at length with the points raised by the hon. Member for Worcester because I intend to be brief, but I take his point that there should be an up-to-date review of British Rail's manpower requirements. However, in the next sentence he said that there have been in the past few years "very substantial reductions in the manpower force". Allowing for the obvious difficulties which exist when we start to run down the manpower force of any industry, I do not think that British Rail should be criticised on this score. It has done a good job, and the unions have co-operated well. It would be less than grateful to pretend that they have not. But I accept that it is necessary that the reductions should continue, and where there is a surplus of manpower every effort must be made to eradicate it.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that better use should be made of the assets of British Rail. I agree, but I think that in the past 12 or 18 months there has been an attempt by the management of British Rail to do just that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the car parking facilities could be used more effectively. Again, allowing for the difficulties of obtaining or using land for
  134
  that purpose, there is no doubt that the management has done as much as it can within the limited resources at its disposal to improve its capital assets. But there is much more to be done, and it is right that the attention of the House should be drawn to this matter.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the freightliner system should remain an integral part of British Rail. I should like to develop that argument at length. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully, because to hive the system off from the main rail service would be detrimental to the progress of British Rail as a whole.
  There is also the question of cooperation with other industries, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman. I agree that more can be done in this direction, but let us be fair about it. I have noticed, for example, that in the West Country in the past two or three years there has been an all-out effort by the management of British Rail. I pay specific tribute to the present Chairman of the Western Region, Mr. Lance Ibbotson, who has done much, with the help of his colleagues, to attract additional traffic to British Rail. A good deal of that sort of thing has happened in other parts of the country also, and it should be encouraged. It would be unfair to British Rail to pretend that no effort is being made.
  We should face the realities. If we are to have a better service from British Railways, it means that there must be a very much better wage rate for all sections in the industry. Wage increases will have to take place to match the increases in the cost of living.
  If passenger services are to improve—and they are already improving, as reflected by the increase in revenue—this will largely depend upon further improvements to track, rolling stock and terminal facilities. That means considerable capital expenditure within the next 10 years. Until roads are provided in the rural areas and we have the necessary motorways to link together the various parts of the country, it is essential that rail services should continue and —let us face it—they may always run at a substantial loss. We have to recognise that as a fact and accept it.
  Freight services are also dependent on good service. Freight will not be sent

  135
  by rail unless the shippers can be assured that the service provided is at least as competitive as road services.
  Although I do not endorse everything the right hon. Lady and her Ministry are doing about British Railways, and although there are many things which could still be improved, at the same time I believe that she and the Ministry have made remarkable progress in the very short time she has been at its head. I do not believe that it would be right to do other than to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with her tonight and to encourage her in the work she is carrying out.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I shall not detain the House long because we are labouring under a great handicap through shortage of time, Question Time having gone over its period. I understand that there are to be winding-up speeches, which is alarming in such a short debate. I hope that action will be taken to avoid this state of affairs in future. I shall make only one or two points so as to allow as much time as possible for others.
  I have crossed swords with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) before. Today he made great play with the deficit. That is the basis of the Motion. He tried to put forward some progressive views as to how the deficit could be reduced. But we have heard it all before. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in the present circumstances, the deficit of British Railways cannot be cleared up. It is impossible.
  British Railways are in a situation conjured up, decided upon and operated because of legislative action by the last Government. We are tied down to these present restrictions. Everyone is agreed that every effort consistent with justice to our railwaymen should be made to get rid of the deficit. I have discussed this with very many raiwaymen and all are terribly keen to do what they can to get rid of the deficit.
  The railwaymen would be jubilant if they managed a substantial reduction in the deficit. It would give them greater heart and give greater impetus to the success of British Railways than anything else. Nothing would give more beneficial
  136
  results than to get rid of this financial load weighting down the railways and the railwaymen themselves.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no claim to criticise the railways. What right have they to belittle what the Government have done since taking office? Whenever a possible line closure is brought forward, there are urgent representations to the Minister. There is a completely united front opposite. I have never heard anyone getting up from the Front Bench opposite and saying, as I and many of my colleagues have said, that if no one is travelling on a line it is no use keeping it open.
  I have also crossed swords before with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). He has talked about his station being closed. He has not lost his line but he has lost his station. But I am afraid that nowadays we do not put down stations in order to serve ancestral castles. Those days have gone. Large estates do not get private railway stations.
  We in this House when we see proposals for modernisation should realise that modernisation carries problems which we must meet and that we must adapt our legislative measures to suit them. I did not realise that there was any support from the Opposition when my right hon. Friend brought forward her proposals to increase the network of 8,000 miles to 11,000 miles. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is to wind up for the Opposition. He has such a knowledge of railways, having steeped himself in the subject, and knows about the 1962 Act, although he was not here at the time for the long Committee sittings. He must tell us whether the Opposition want an 8,000 miles network or the 11,000 miles the Government propose. Those are the sort of things the hon. Gentleman must answer tonight and not try to brush them off in a few words.
  It is absolutely necessary that certain lines be kept in operation because of their social value. I am thinking primarily here of the many Highland lines, but, of course, there are many other examples in Wales and in England, where the arguments are just as strong. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) mentioned Cornwall,

  137
  where the road network is not suitable for the traffic which follows the closing down of railways. This, of course, is a valid point and we must not endanger passengers as they are being endangered in certain areas now because the roads are not suitable for buses which have replaced rail services. I have written about some of these cases to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  The Opposition must also make up their minds about socially necessary lines. I hope that they will say that they agree with us that such lines should not be an on-cost on British Railways' finances but carried by the Treasury, thereby giving the railways some hope of breaking even. I do not want to give the impression that I believe that the outlook for British Railways is black, dismal and without hope. I believe that the railways have a great future and that there are many bright aspects.
  I had an opportunity with some of my colleagues several weeks ago to go through the Railways Research Centre at Derby. It is a heartening thing for any one who is interested in railways to see the type of staff that we are recruiting into that centre, the young scientists attracted from other big concerns and going into the railway work because they believe that there is a future for the railways and that they can add to it. It is the same with the Derby railway workshops.
  The opening Opposition speech illustrated the tender corner that the hon. Member for Worcester has for railway workshops; he never mentioned them. I am positive that when we bring forward our new legislation greater freedom will be given to the railway workshops to manufacture all sorts of things and supply more of the railway equipment than they are doing today. I believe that we can do this more cheaply and that this can he proved in many instances. If we can prove that we can produce railway material more cheaply that private concerns that are now doing it, ought they to be doing the work? If we can prove in open competition with private enterprise fiat we can do outside work more cheaply and beat private enterprise to it on contract price, ought not the railway workshops to be allowed to extend their operations to cover these things? I am all for it.
  138
  I hope that we shall have the railway workshops freed from the shackles that they had on them under Toryism. They were not even allowed to compete for railway material. Indeed, private enterprise was given contracts that the railway workshops ought to have had. I am convinced on the basis of data that I have examined that much of the material can be produced more cheaply than private firms are now doing it. I hope that hon. Members will agree that where private enterprise falls down in competition, British Railways workshops ought to be allowed to carry out the work.
  I concur in the case put forward by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that we shall not have to wait too long before we get the new legislation which will allow British Railways efficiently to tackle the present deficit.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. David Webster: I am glad to follow in the debate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). He had a tiff with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). It was not my hon. Friend's fault that he was not a Member of the House when the 1962 Act came in.
  However, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire forgets part of the Act. I remember that on one occasion he was serving on two Standing Committees at the same time. There was a shout of "Division" and the hon. Member arrived in time to get the door shut in his face, and he slipped and sat down on the mat, and that as the safest seat that he has ever had in the House. I remember the hon. Gentleman's occasional disappearances from the Standing Committee in between his speeches.
  In that Act we provided the opportunity for British Railways to abolish the common carrier liability. We gave freedom to British Railways not necessarily in every case to have its charges published. We also gave British Railways for the first time the right to develop its properties. When the hon. Gentleman says that that Act is a restricting Act, he is to a great extent making a debating point.
  I was sorry that the Minister was not able to give us a progress report on the subject of the assets and properties that

  139
  we gave British Railways the right to develop. Many of them are in the heart of our great cities. Many of them rather duplicate facilities, and if they had been closed they could have been sold for considerable property value. We have given British Railways the right to develop these properties, and I feel that the Minister has not had enough to tell us and that we should learn a great deal more.
  I listened, as always, to the right hon. Lady's speech. I am a student of her speeches. I have followed them with a great deal of interest for a number of years. I thought that, apart from one thing of great importance which I wish the right hon. Lady had said some years ago, in what she had to say the charm was greater than the substance.
  The right hon. Lady talked about the six constructive proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), and said rather lamely that she was trying to carry out some of them. She as able to give no progress report. There was no substance in what she said about what my hon. Friend had suggested. My hon. Friend talked about manning. The right hon. Lady said "We are already trying to do it", and she quoted certain figures of the Beeching Plan. From time to time she supported the plan; from time to time she abused it. She came to wage structures and said that she was trying to do what had been said but had nothing to tell us. She talked about assets but had nothing to tell us, and talked about management but had little to tell us. I should have thought that this was an opportunity for the Minister of Transport to tell us a great deal about what she is doing. This is what a debate such as this is for.
  I want to correct an impression that the right hon. Lady left with us. She talked, rightly, about the trend away from freight and to passengers. I remember, and so will the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, that when we had the 1962 Act the passenger receipts were about one-third of the total receipts of the railway. The figure has now gone from £151 million to £179 million, while at the same time freight receipts have declined from £316 million to £275 million. One appreciates that at present the railways are very sensitive to any
  140
  credit squeeze, any form of freeze, any form of stop-go. The stop always hits the railways because they are big mineral carriers. But there is a tendency away from this.
  The Minister of Transport took immense credit for herself and her Department because passenger receipts had risen. But I think she overlooks the fact that in the case of season tickets there have been increases of between 12 per cent. and 17 per cent. and in the case of second class return tickets the increase is about 8 per cent. I am afraid that this erodes and takes away a large section of the increase in the passenger receipts which has occurred since she became Minister of Transport.
  But these are probably small points compared with the point of substance regarding Stratford. Stratford is a tragedy. I welcomed a great deal of what the Minister had to say. I thought it was time that a Minister of Transport supported in the House the determination of the management of British Railways to make the freightliner depots work. What she said was right. I would just say—at this time one has to be careful—that I wish she had said it before. I wish she had been as robust when we came to the Tartan Arrow issue, and I wish she had been as robust all the time in standing up for the management of British Railways. We frequently find the Minister going on publicised visits to N.U.R. depots and N.U.R. supporters, but we hear less publicity about visits giving the support of her prestige and authority to the management of British Railways. I only wish she had said these things before, and, that being so, I only wish that she might have used her authority to limit the more aggressive nature of certain elements in the union. As I say, Stratford is a tragedy.
  What the railways have been trying to do is to use the container as a medium between road and rail and, as the right hon. Lady rightly said, maritime transport. This is something which, if handled without political dogma and on the best management principles, without political interference, can bring about one of the greatest revolutions in the history of transport and, as I have already said in the House, a great revolution in communications almost comparable to the

  141
  assembly line in manufacturing industry. We in this House and the railway management have been seeking for years a form of interaction between the different forms of transport.
  It is in the handling of this matter without political dogma and on proper administrative and management criteria that the real hope for the railways lies. This is why it is so wrong that Part I of the Transport Bill, which we shall see next year, envisages the taking away from the railways, at a time when they have their greatest opportunity to make progress and improve their morale, their right to the freightliner depots and giving them to an anonymous, amorphous National Freight Authority responsible to no one. This was the greatest opportunity for the railways to improve their morale and their finances. It is tragic that the Minister seeks to destroy what the railways have built up, fostered and cherished.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Bradley: We are all conscious of the present tragic labour dispute in London, and I am sure the whole House hopes that there will soon be a speedy and satisfactory settlement.
  Quite apart from this crisis, railways always seem to be in the news and it is in the very nature of things that more attention is paid to matters that go wrong and less to those which go right and which represent real achievement. It seems that everybody knows how to run a railway far more effectively and efficiently than those who are paid to do it. This is one of the favourite armchair occupations of the British people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is no exception. We can only be thankful that he is not in charge of the industry's destiny. His bustling approach to more immediate and massive dismissals of further staff would make the Stratford affair a picnic compared with the havoc which would result from his approach to the industry's problems.
  We can become too preoccupied with this question of the deficit. It tends to detract from some really positive results of rationalisation. What are some of these results? The hon. Member for Worcester seemed to imply that British Railways had done very little apart from adopting
  142
  a negative approach to railway line closures.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to the new centre at Derby. The management there has provided a modern research and technical centre foremost in the world in terms of its technical and scientific contribution to railway knowledge and development. It has brought together research, design and development processes. It has studied high-speed transport guiding systems and characteristics of rolling stock at high speeds. We can design vehicles capable of being stable at speeds of 200 m.p.h., although nobody is suggesting, of course, that it is intended to travel at that speed. But fast speeds on British Railways are now possible. We can gear them to commercial considerations as distinct from engineering restrictions.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Worcester referred to the hovercraft company. The railways have endeavoured to form a subsidiary company to examine the potentialities. They hold a large interest in short-distance shipping in this country, and this form of transport is now operating in the Solent very successfully. I hope nobody will take it away from British Railways, as the hon. Member for Worcester seemed to desire. For far too long have the railways had many of their profitable sidelines stripped away from them. Steam traction has given way to electrification. We now have clean, fast, comfortable and convenient services which are highly popular and are proving extremely worrying to the railway's main competitors. We now have company trains carrying petrol and cement, and liner trains and containerisation. Then there is the coal concentration scheme involving block trains from the collieries to all parts of the country. All these represent remarkable advances in efficient working.
  A national signalling plan is under way with the object of increasing line capacity and the more effective use of manpower. One large electronic box today replaces 40 or 50 manual types. These and many other examples which could be quoted tend to be overshadowed as positive achievements of British Railways by this preoccupation with the deficit, to which I now turn.

  143
  I remind the House that this deficit is not a problem peculiar to Great Britain. Nearly all the major railways of the western world have deficits on our basis of accounting. They are all financed by the State in different ways. Take the latest available figures for 1965. We see that the Italian State railways had a working deficit of 126,925 million lire; French railways had a deficit of 842 million francs, and German railways 2,248 million deutschmarks as an overall deficit.
  What are some of the factors involved in our deficit? I remind the House that the level of demand for railway services is not entirely within the competence of the British Railways Board. They are affected by Government policy, short and long term. The July, 1966, economic measures reduced demand for transport generally, particularly iron and steel traffics, and had a very severe effect on rail carryings. It is creditable, therefore, that against this background the railways almost maintained their total traffic receipts. The actual working deficit showed a slight improvement of £1·2 million over 1965.
  The House must recognise that railways become the residuary legatees of everybody else's economic problems. That is why future Government policy in respect of fuel and power is so important at present and is of vital consequence to British Railways. Coal has been the lifeblood of the railways for years. The railways carry 80 per cent. of all coal mined, which is 61 per cent. of all the traffic they carry. The first 16 weeks in this year revealed a down-turn of £6 million in receipts compared with 1966. If the total production of coal falls to 135 million tons, which is being speculated upon elsewhere, this will have a catastrophic effect on railway accounts.
  Iron and steel carryings were down in 1966 by about 7 million tons, or 15.6 per cent., compared with 1965. The future of the home ore industry is of crucial consequence in this respect. We are told that the future of the home ore industry is in considerable doubt. If imported ore arrives in this country it will come in on the Clyde, at Immingham and South Wales, close to the centre of production, meaning shorter rail hauls and less revenue.
  144
  Apart from the effect of the Government's economic measures, the biggest single factor is the general transport policy of the Government of the day. This has certainly applied since the railways were nationalised in 1948. The 1953 legislation denationalising road haulage, and that of 1962 breaking up the British Transport Commission and isolating the railways, stripping them of their profitable sidelines, has had dire consequences for the railways and has made forward planning extremely difficult. It is significant that in 1951 the railways had an operating profit of £33 million. In 1954 it was still £16½ million. Then the 1953 wrecking Act and the 1962 Act, which was supposed to make the railways independent and viable, started the long drift into insolvency.
  A large part also of the deficit is attributable to the provision of the social services, which ought to be a national or local and not a railway responsibility. So long as the railways are required by the nation to provide services—and I refer to commuters travelling at peak periods, stopping passenger services, rural lines and stand-by capacity—which cannot possibly be conducted on a commercial basis, they will never be able to produce a respectable balance sheet.
  Take the present deficit of £135 million. Sir Stanley Raymond, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on 27th April, estimated that the total cost of the social element stands at about £100 million. The Minister this afternoon referred to the figures in the Annual Report attributing £60 million to stopping services and suburban commuters travelling at peak periods.
  On the other side, there is the question of track costs estimated to involve the railways in an expenditure of £130 million per annum alone. A large part of the track would not be there if strictly commercial considerations are applied to it.
  We have to ask ourselves: ought the balance sheet to continue to show what are considerable stand-by and capacity costs involved in retaining a track as part of a private highway? A new look is required at the entire question of track cost, especially having regard to the undeniable fact that the road haulage industry competes unfairly with British Rail in that it demonstrably does not pay its full share of its own track costs. The

  145
  French Government recognised this problem, concerning their railways, and it makes a large direct contribution to its railway track costs. This is something that our own Government should be looking at in the future.
  Criticisms are continually based on the railway' failure to pay their own way as a commercial undertaking. The railways have not been able to function as a commercial concern, and much of their failure to satisfy the normal business criteria of success is due entirely to external factors. The most important of these have been the various restrictions placed on them in the interests of general social and economic policies. We all know what used to happen with the interference of the previous Government in increases in fares applied for before the Transport Tribunal. Many times they were put and arrived at a lower level at the dictation of the Government, despite what was recommended by an independent tribunal.
  The existing situation is that the Railways Board have tried three times to put up their London fares, because it was economically necessary to do so. But, because of other considerations, they have had to be postponed and they are now three stages behind. It is well to recognise these facts. How can we blame the railways for not increasing their revenue when we deliberately prevent them from raising it?
  These are considerations which we should bear in mind when we tend to criticise the railways for not behaving as a profitable lucrative commercial undertaking.
  Railway financial difficulties arise because they are required to fulfil public obligations. This should be openly recognised and accepted. That is why so many of us involved in the industry on the trade union side very much welcome the setting up of the Joint Steering Group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to identify costs, to give us a clear remit arising out of their studies and a fair yardstick on which to operate in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester complained that the evidence will not become available. I would remind him of the Stedeford Committee which the previous Government set up
  146
  comprised of outsiders—not men within the industry—coming to look at us. One of the members of that Committee was Dr. Beeching. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was then the Minister of Transport, and Mr. Harold Macmillan, who was the Prime Minister at the time, never allowed us to see that Committee's conclusions. We have never known how much was in the 1962 Act which that Committee recommended and how much was left out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester must be very careful when he launches a complaint that we are keeping things secret, having regard to the history of his own Government.
  Finally, I would say a word about manpower and productivity. As some hon. Members and right hon. Members will know, because of my trade union position I am intimately concerned in the discussions going on. I will be at the Ministry of Labour tomorrow morning drawing to a conclusion the threads of a discussion which has now been going on since May, 1966, on these vital topics.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester implied that we were doing nothing about productivity. We are, and talking about a new pay structure. This has been going on since last May and now we are drawing the threads to a conclusion. There has been a great deal of talk in these discussions about the unions making a contribution towards greater productivity, which is always difficult to measure in any event in a service industry which moves traffic and does not make it. The unions involved in the discussions have indicated again and again their willingness to agree to multiplication of duties and a greater versatility within the labour force. There is no lack of willingness amongst the railway trade unions to come to terms with this problem of the more efficient use of manpower.
  Mention has been made that the total reduction of staff since 1961 is over 160,000–32 per cent. of the labour force. Has any other industry lost 32 per cent. of its labour force through the national economy without some display of bitterness? It is a great tribute to the statesmanship of the unions and the response of the management as well that arrangements have been made to release so easily these redundant workers into the main stream

  147
  of the economy. Having regard to what has happened elsewhere, it is a wonder that there have not been more Stratfords.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester says that he wants to see more generous redundancy payments. I would agree, but he must bear in mind that they will only add to the deficit of which he is complaining. In the Accounts this year we see a figure of £5 million attributable to redundancy payments—£6 million in the 1965 accounts. Therefore, because of what has gone on, because of some of the irritations, because of some of the upheaval involved in men changing their jobs and moving their homes, it is a great wonder there has not been more trouble. When there are hints that the present labour force of 338,000 may be reduced even further to 250,000, we get the kind of industrial explosion that has been referred to taking place at the present time in Stratford, and one can understand the incentive of management—and this is where the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester makes his point of entry—because rail staff costs form 60 per cent. of their total budget; in other words, a 5 per cent. increase on pay, which is 3 per cent. on the total costs of this labour-intensive industry.
  We appreciate that the management wants to get the labour force down, but we want to do this sensibly, rationally and with some understanding of the human problems involved. We do not want to rush precipitately and headlong into this great human problem as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester inferred that he would be doing.
  The railwayman knows all about change. He has been involved in one administrative upheaval after another. If we are to prevent the kind of crisis which now confronts us we must improve our consultation methods and lines of communication into the lower reaches of management where so much is allowed to go sour before the crisis manifests itself at top level. Railwaymen for their part must recognise, however, that they now have a most sympathetic Minister of Transport—the most rail-minded Minister of Transport that we have ever had—who has improved their overall prospects by publishing a network map retaining a 40 to 50 per cent. improvement on that in-
  148
  tended by Dr. Beeching in 1963. What must not be allowed to happen through legitimate misunderstandings is the kind of incident we are witnessing which could place in peril the entire plan for the redevelopment and the solvency of the industry in which so many of us have invested our lives.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This has been a short but interesting debate in which by a self-denying ordinance, a number of hon. Gentlemen with very real knowledge of the railways have been enabled to speak. They have spoken briefly, but with knowledge and sincerity and I am sure that we have enjoyed their contributions.
  It is rather tragic that this debate should take place at a time when there is a very serious labour dispute in the industry, and what I say is in no way designed to harm or prevent a settlement being arrived at.
  Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Member should say that to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster).
  Mr. Taylor: I will ignore that interruption, which was unjustified and unfair. We were pleased that the Minister endorsed the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) that the Board should be fully supported in the stand they are taking. I think we all know that at the present time it is the railways alone that are suffering.
  I was very disappointed, after the forward-looking and constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, to hear the contrast of the Minister's speech, which appeared to be appallingly complacent and to offer us no hope of limiting this dreadful deficit in future. The right hon. Lady appeared to be satisfied with the progress being made. She seemed to say that the deficit was impossible to eliminate. But many of us were reminded of the words in the National Plan, published by this very Government only a few months ago, planning the elimination of the railways deficit by 1970. We have heard from various hon. Members opposite that that is impossible to be achieved. Was this merely a happy

  149
  hallucination of the National Plan? Should we forget about it and discard it completely? When we suggested that to the Government only a few days after the National Plan was published, we were accused of being too destructive. But now it seems that we must forget it completely and that the deficit is here to stay.
  The deficit is not only enormous, but exceeds by about £20 million an estimate made earlier this year, and the deficit appears to be rising. In these circumstances, the very least to which we were entitled was that the Minister would take this opportunity to present constructive policies which she believed would lead to the reduction or elimination of the deficit. She had plenty of opportunities to follow the comments of my hon. Friend.
  One of the things which we must not forget and which my hon. Friend mentioned very carefully is the sheer size of the deficit. Participation in public life and in business tends to make people somewhat immune to millions, and it is possible that the enormity of this deficit tends to cause confusion. However, my hon. Friend expressed it by saying that for the average family it meant a charge of about 4s. a week—that if the deficit did not the average family would pay 4s. a week less in taxation. Speaking recently at a conference, the Minister herself expressed it by saying that it meant 6d. on Income Tax. That gives some idea of the size of the burden.
  The deficit cannot be considered in isolation from the huge burden of State spending in the community. We talk about the social costs of railway closures, but we should also think of the social costs of railway deficits and what higher taxation and higher Government expenditure can mean to initiative and enterprise. It is a tragic fact that about 26 per cent. of all spending in this country is undertaken by the Government, whereas in France and Italy the figure is 22 per cent.; in the United States, 18 per cent.; in Germany and Canada, less than 15 per cent.; in Japan, 12 per cent.; and in Switzerland, 10 per cent. To the Prime Minister, who used to enjoy talking in terms of league tables, it can be no satisfaction to know that this is one league of which we are the top and that
  150
  the position is deteriorating. In three years the burden of taxation has risen from £6,600 million to about £9,000 million, a rise of about one-third.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins Mr. Ronald Atkins (Preston, North) rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way; the right hon. Lady did not give way once.
  This deficit is coverable so long as there is a prospect of improvement, so long as there is a prospect of some return from the massive capital investment of about £1,200 million in ten years, but at present there is no prospect of improvement. The estimated loss for 1966–67 was £115 million, but the final result was £20 million more than that and it has been suggested that in 1967 it will be worse. This situation is intolerable and all the indications are that the Minister's existing policies can only make it worse. We therefore appeal to the House to accept the positive and constructive policies which my hon. Friend has put forward.
  What are the mistakes? One of them was mentioned in his admirable speech by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). This is the subject of responsibility for freightliner trains. This is a revolutionary concept in freight transport which has been developed by the enthusiastic work of British Railways. The Minister referred to its enormous potential when she said that 350 containers were carried by British Railways in January, 1966, while by December of that year the number had risen to 4,600. Last year, more than 27,000 containers were carried by British Railways. There was the prospect of substantial profitability. We have heard, for example, of the contract to transport meat between Aberdeen and London—about 7,000 tons of meat, or the equivalent of 30,000 cattle.
  In these circumstances, the Minister's decision to set up a National Freight Authority was a tragic blunder. Unquestionably, it was a body blow to the railway staff which had put so much effort and so much enterprise into this new development. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer one straight

  151
  question: who is in favour of the National Freight Authority? Do British Railways want the National Freight Authority; does the British Transport Holding Company; does the National Union of Railwaymen; do the customers? Who wants this new authority, which is taking from British Railways the one development which has the greatest potential and the greatest profitability?
  The best thing the Minister could do would be to abandon this plan and assure the railwaymen that they can retain this profitable growth potential of liner trains which they have developed themselves. It is tragic that the future of the freightliners should be very much affected by the present strike, but our aim must be for the freightliners to remain the responsibility of British Railways, who should be encouraged to co-operate with every form of private enterprise and encouraged to go for every bit of business which they can get in fair competition.
  There is a second major blunder which can lead only to a worsening of the situation. That is the Minister's decision rigidly to adhere to a framework of 11,000 miles of railway line. The right hon. Lady spoke of the size of the system required in future. At the same time, a Steering Committee has been set up to look into all aspects of the future profitability of the railways. The Steering Committee is a high-powered body and has expert advice and assistance, and it will be of value to all those who are interested in the future of the railways. But what is the point of setting up a committee of that sort and calibre, with expert advice and assistance, and then giving it the answer to its inquiries before it starts its job? This is commercial and administrative nonsense.
  Even if we disregard that, we have to consider the uncertainties in the future of the railways. Coal is probably the most important item of freight carried by the railways—about 130 million tons last year. This year the figure will probably be 120 million, perhaps even less. We are all looking forward with keen anticipation to the publication by the Minister of Power of a national fuel plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and others have been pressing the Government for a long time to publish that plan. We do not know what
  152
  is in it and we do not know what is to be the future of the coal and other industries in which the Government have a major interest. Unfortunately, we are soon to have the National Steel Corporation. My party has no great confidence in the future of the steel industry under nationalisation, but unquestionably major changes will have to take place.
  These two major developments will have a significant effect on the future of the railways. In these circumstances what utter nonsense it is to arrive at such a rigid figure of 11,000 miles, before we have even begun to look at the consequences of such major changes.
  Then there is surplus property. My hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster) pointed out that this was a new development allowed by legislation passed when we were in power. The potential here is enormous. Surplus properties are valued at about £70 million. Last year £10 million extra was brought in to balance the book value of properties sold. Money accruing to British Railways came to round about £19 million, with an excess over book value of £3–4 million.
  The surplus on letting these properties came to £2–2 million. Here, like the freightliners, is real potential, real growth and the prospect of profit and money accruing to British Railways. What have the Government done to help this new potential? First of all, we have had the restrictions on commercial development. Secondly, we have had the freeze, which in some cases prevented additional charges being allowed for in commercial agreements. Thirdly, we have had the most wonderful example of integration and co-ordination, which I understand are the twin inspirations of Socialist planning. This has been an appalling example of blunder.
  In October last year a Circular was published by the Minister of Housing, which said that British Railways should offer surplus property to local authorities first of all. This undoubtedly brought in the delay and restriction of what was increased profit potential. At the same time the Government put very considerable curbs on local authority spending. The result was that British Railways were forced, perhaps against their commercial judgment, to offer properties and land to local authorities, and yet another

  153
  Government Department was preventing these local authorities from obtaining sanctions. At the end of 1966 there were £8 million worth of sales uncompleted to local authorities, many of whom were unable to obtain loan sanction. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) questions this, it is in the Annual Report of British Railways for him to read if he cares to do so.
  Reference has been made to British Railways workshops. We on this side of the House have always believed that the workshops can add their skill and strength to the operation of the railways, for the obvious reason that they have shown this under my right hon. Friend. There has been a great deal of money spent on rationalisation and reorganisation, but the Government have now come forward with the proposal that the workshops should be able to compete openly with outside industry in any area.
  There might be something to be said for this argument if we had any assurance that there would be genuine costing and competition, even in the sphere of railways supply, in which at present the workshops have a virtual monopoly. I know that the only remaining firm building carriages on new work outside of British Railway workshops, has tendered for about £24 million worth of work in the last few years but has obtained not one order. It is quite clear that within the sphere of building carriages and wagons there is not fair and free competition. There is not costing which we would accept as reasonable and fair.
  Mr. J. T. Price: This argument does not stand up, because the railway workshops in the part of Lancashire which I have the honour to represent are losing contracts for points and crossings and other railway equipment, for which they have to compete on commercial lines with outside industry.
  Mr. Taylor: I was referring to the building of carriages and wagons. If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I am saying he can look up in HANSARD an Answer given to me by the Minister of Transport after I had asked whether it would be the case that British Railways workshops would quote a fixed price for new work tendering, in the same way as the private sector of industry. The answer was
  154
  "No" and if the hon. Gentleman wants to know why, let him ask his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
  There were other matters that I had hoped to cover, but I hope I will be excused, as time does not allow. To summarise briefly, what is the outlook for British Railways? Speaking at the Conference of the National Union of Railwaymen and Branch Secretaries at the beginning of this month the Minister said:
  "The railways have been the Cinderellas of transport for a long time now. I cannot wave a magic wand and produce a glass coach and a golden crown for railwaymen."
  This at least is one pledge which has been kept. The right hon. Lady unquestionably inherited the framework of the glass coach, but with the help of her Cabinet colleagues, by blunder, weakness and obsession with ideology, she has succeeded where Prince Charming failed, in transforming the embryo glass coach into a pumpkin.
  Where there was hope now there is gloom and disillusionment; where there was flexibility, now there is rigidity; where labour relations were tolerable, now they appear to be at an all-time low. A deficit which was being reduced is now rising, and appears to be getting out of control.
  What about investment? An essential stimulus to demand and profitability has been cut back by the Government which claims to have faith in the railways. The 1966 investment allocation of £120 million was £15 million below the actual sum given in the National Plan as the figure to be spent in the next few years. Even this figure of £120 million, because of financial curbs, was reduced by £14 million. The 1967 amount which will be spent on capital is down again, to £104 million.
  I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that in the National Plan's estimate of the work needed to be done to eliminate the railway deficit by 1970 it was made clear that capital spending at the rate of £135 million a year over the next few years was required. We have never reached anything like that in 1966, and in 1967 we are down to £104 million. The highly profitable development activities in surplus property have been hamstrung by the freeze and office building restrictions, and the administrative red tape to which I have referred.

  155
  The real hope and inspiration for the future, liner trains, are under the threat of a Ministerial take-over, through a National Freight Authority which no one —the N.U.R., British Railways Transport Holding Company or anyone else—wants. This will further divert the scarce management skills of the railways away from their essential tasks. The railway workshops which could, through continuing reorganisation and the stimulus of competition, contribute real strength to the railways, are being transformed into a self-supplying monopoly empowered to tender outside a protected monopoly market on the strength of an incoherent and suspect basis of competition.
  In the quasi-commercial spheres of hotel management and catering a ludicrously low rate of return—a 1 per cent. increase in the case of catering—continues without any demand being made to realise the rich harvest of profit which is there for all to see. The closing of unprofitable lines, even those agreed months ago, are delayed at enormous costs because the awarding of alternative bus route contracts awaits essential road improvements, no doubt deferred by the Minister's own cuts.
  So the bright promises contained in the National Plan, inserted in our Motion as an act of political charity and torn out by the Government's own Amendment, give way to the grim reality of the mounting deficit—£.135 million last year, probably £145 million this year. The social cost of this enormous drain on our natural resources can be seen from our industrial stagnation, and the rocketing emigration, which stems directly from the inquitous tax burden imposed in this country.
  It is foolish for the Minister or anyone else to laugh at this, because the fact is that rising taxation is at the root of industrial stagnation, whether on the railways, private industry or elsewhere. The Minister should realise that the railway deficit is part of this, and it is a vast and growing problem. The Minister offers us only one answer—a new method of doing the sums, more from the taxpayer, more from the conurbation authorities, and more from the already overburdened ratepayers. This is a response which is unacceptable to the people of this nation.
  156
  We on this side have a firm conviction that the sensible, sane and constructive policies proposed by my right hon. Friend and developed by my hon. Friends in this debate could bring about the efficient, flexible and go-ahead railway system which our economy requires. It is because the Minister's policies and the Government's policies are working against this objective that we shall divide the House tonight.
  6.40 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): In the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), I wonder how he can seriously contemplate taking his hon. Friends into the Lobby. I was fascinated by his "do-it-yourself", poor man's railway kit and all his policies, which he numbered one after another.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) accused my right hon. Friend of being appallingly complacent. He castigated her for not being constructive. I can only assume that he is a good student and that he had prepared his speech well before coming into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were preventing British Railways from disposing speedily of surplus property. Let me reassure him. In 1965, sales amounted to £12–7 million. In 1966, they were £24–3 million.
  The Opposition's Motion is in three parts. First, it regrets the mounting deficit. Secondly, it regrets the Government's failure to take steps about the working deficit and productivity. Thirdly, it goes on to point out that had we done so there would have been a contribution to national economic growth.
  I have no great quarrel with the third part—apart from its lack of balance. But lower costs and lower manpower—and, as we have heard in the debate, manpower is over 60 per cent. of the railways' costs—are only one side of the balance sheet. There is the other side, receipts. On this, like most other industries, British Railways are not entirely masters in their own house. They are the carriers of people and people's goods. They do not operate in a vacuum. The prosperity and rate of growth and changes in the industries of its customers

  157
  have a profound effect on the Board's own prosperity. I should have thought that the Opposition, as self-acknowledged business experts, would have drafted their Motion to take account of the whole finances of the industry.
  As regards the first part of the Motion —the total deficit—my right hon. Friend has dealt with the last four years and the likely situation in 1967. But since the Opposition are particularly concerned with the working deficit, it is worth noting that over the whole period 1963 to 1966 this has been contained, despite substantial increases in costs. The figures are £81 million odd in 1963, they varied in 1964. and 1965, and £71 million 1966. This is hardly the picture of a deficit getting out of control. After absorbing increased wages and other costs of about £95 million, in that period, it is a commendable achievement that working expenses are down. This is the direct result of productivity and increased efficiency, which the Opposition complain about in their Motion.
  In no way am I minimising the anxiety which we all share, but at the same time the relevance of the detailed figures must be judged against the vast turnover of the industry. Both gross receipts and expenditure are of the order of £500 million, and it is against these figures that comparatively small changes in the deficit should be judged.
  The fall in freight traffics is the key to British Railways' failure to achieve the results hoped for in 1965 and 1966, and it will be the same in 1967. My right hon. Friend has mentioned the rise in passenger receipts. The totality of all freight traffics has gone down in that period.
  The Board is being particularly badly hit by the fall in coal traffics and iron and steel. These form 80 per cent. of its total freight tonnage, and over a third of its freight receipts comes from coal. Because of this dependence on coal traffics and the vast railway investment in this field, it is obvious that we have had to be in close touch with the Minister of Power in the formulation of fuel policies. It is important that, whenever there are any changes in trends, British Railways should be able to take action to mitigate the effect on its own finances. This cannot be done overnight,
  158
  but what can be done is to ensure that early information is available and to watch very closely the scope and area of any new investment in this field.
  I think that I have dealt with the first and third parts of the Opposition's Motion. The nub of it is, of course, in the second part. They complain of our failure to eliminate the working deficit—as if this were something of our own invention. What I have said about freight, I think, has dealt with the "mounting" element of the deficit. Like the majority of industries, and more than many, the railways are affected by the general economic situation and the Government's essential measures to right the balance of payments. This has been accentuated by the particular changes in the coal and iron and steel cartage side of their business.
  But the House will not forget that British Railways are still operating under the restrictions of the 1962 Act. Even that Act, despite the political euphoria on the benches opposite at the time, gave a number of years during which the deficit had to be carried. It imposed the dual and contradictory objectives on the industry of paying its way—operating on commercial criteria—and, at the same time, of paying for lines which any Minister of Transport decided to keep open for social reasons. This is now both unworkable and unacceptable to the country and to the House.
  I sympathise with the Opposition in their predicament. They do not know whether they want closures or not. The odd exceptional one far away from the constituency of any hon. Gentleman opposite is obviously welcomed. They would then feel in accord with the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). Only the other day the hon. Member for Worcester was in full cry because allegedly Her Majesty's Government had closed more railway lines over a period than his party. Not only was he wrong, but he soon dropped this like a hot potato when I told the House that in one month alone—September, 1964—just before the election, decisions to close some 460 miles of line had been taken by the right hon. Member for Wallasey. This is about a third of the whole mileage of line closed by the present Government in 2½ years—and it was done in one month. The closest parallel to

  159
  the feverish activity in the Ministry of Transport in those heady summer months is that of a diplomatic mission in an unfriendly foreign country burning its files when it is about to be sacked.
  We have accepted that there is a need to look closely at the statutory obligations of British Railways, and that there is a need to look closely at its finances and give it realistic objectives. There is nothing worse for the morale of management and men than to be saddled on the one hand with a never ending closure programme—taking up an enormous proportion of management time—and on the other, a sizeable deficit. The hon. Member for Worcester talked rightly about the danger of enormous figures becoming meaningless. The greater the deficit is, the greater the danger of its becoming a disincentive to financial and managerial efficiency.
  There are two tasks. The first is that of accountancy. This is the placing of financial responsibility on the shoulders of those to whom it belongs. The whole philosophy of targeting and financial discipline is that one has a workable yardstick to measure achievement. Profit and loss in itself does not do this. The second task is to examine the underlying causes of the deficit and to seek to remedy it.
  My right hon. Friend and the Board have recognised the urgency of this priority and she and the Chairman have set up the Joint Inquiry which is taking place under my chairmanship. We have had the assistance of eminent independent members, and of the Board, as regards both management and men. Consultants have been engaged to probe deeply into the very matters which have caused anxiety to all of us.
  The principles that we have announced of separating the social from the commercial in terms of accountancy and the paying of specific subsidies are being formulated. Yardsticks have to be decided upon and the extent of the problem mapped out. This has been a most searching and painstaking examination of the major factors involved and I pay tribute to the time and energy—generous beyond description—that has been given to this investigation by its members. In the autumn, my right hon. Friend the Minister
  160
  will set out how she proposes to act in the light of any proposals we make.
  The root cause of the deficit has had to be analysed. Trends and forecasts for the future have had to be assessed. Capital, receipts and costs have had the cold light of objective analysis thrown upon them. The wagon load traffic, sundries and parcels and commuter traffic —this is where a great deal of the losses take place. This is the kind of problem that has had to be tackled.
  On the deficit, I think that I have shown that a sustained and determined effort is being made jointly, by the Board and the Ministry through my Group, to get at the facts and to present proposals.
  Nor are we sitting back in the meantime. Already a great deal of work is being done, in the interest of economy, on the extension of inter-working arrangements in the parcels and sundries field and the planning of the unification of British Railways' and British Road Services in that direction. It was a bit of a shock to me to discover that British Railways had not been accorded permissive powers under the 1962 Act to send goods throughout by road where necessary. What an idiotic restriction this was to impose upon them. My right hon. Friend was pleased to give the British Railways Board the necessary consent. Those are the kind of restrictions that this great industry has been saddled with under the terms of the 1962 Act.
  The only aspect remaining of the Motion is the complaint about our failure to take steps to increase productivity. I have already mentioned how working expenses have been contained in the face of increased costs. This is the acid test of the effort to increase productivity. Steam locomotives in the last four years have gone down from 7,000 to 1,600, while diesel and electric have gone up from 4,250 to 5,300. Coaching vehicles are down by one-third and there has been a reduction of getting on for 200,000 in freight vehicles. These are the steps for which we should commend the British Railways Board in its efforts to increase productivity.
  My right hon. Friend played a very significant part in getting agreement on liner train open terminals. This was a longstanding dispute dating from early 1964. The Conservative Government,

  161
  while recognising their value, were unable to persuade the unions to allow free access. It was a Labour Government that took the decision to go ahead and it was my right hon. Friend, after long and patient negotiation, who secured the agreement.
  I totally reject the interpretation by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) of the Tartan Arrow issue. My right hon. Friend's intervention was done with the full support of British Railways management. I presume that the hon. Member's carping remarks were not calculated to be helpful. Neither were the Opposition's taunts before my right hon. Friend succeeded in the liner train agreement. Month after month, the Opposition taunted and ridiculed her. I am sure that it was to their great surprise that my right hon. Friend eventually succeeded in winning through on this great and important issue.
  The use of liner trains has continued to rise, from 1,300 containers a week last February to nearly 1,900 a week recently. The network is growing. New traffic is coming on to rail and, at the same time, the Board has been able to reorganise its own existing traffics more efficiently and more economically. If this is not productivity, what is? I agree entirely with the Opposition that this kind of measure can, in the words of their Motion,
  "make a significant contribution to the nation's economic growth".
  This the Board is doing, and this is what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve. She should not be faulted by the Opposition for all this. Rather should she be congratulated.
  But the chief field for increased productivity must be manpower, the biggest item in the industry's costs; and we know how very sensitive this is. The industry has seen a massive contraction in its labour force, from 503,000 to 361,000 in four years, and further reductions are inevitable. Any industry which has seen both this loss of jobs and, at the same time, the complete lack of any meaning or sense in the Act and statute
  governing it must be very wary of any change.
  In the last 18 months, I have travelled more than 5,000 miles from railway centre to railway centre, from district council to district council, from weekend school to local departmental committee to explain what we are seeking to do with the industry and to carry back the views of the men to my right hon. Friend. Sometimes I have had the opportunity of a full night to talk to the industry's elected representatives, or it may well be a few minutes at a goods yard or station. But I yield to no one in my awareness of the real anxieties of these very worthy men. Those men know more than anyone the real problems of contraction.
  Anyone who has had occasion to lift the veil from over the out-of-date pay and jobs structure of this industry will realise that the barnacles of the years frequently conceal whatever merit there was in any particular differentiation. This is one of the main reasons for the history of unrest for so many years. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been presiding over the wide-ranging discussions between the Railways Board and the unions on the pay structure, productivity and efficiency of the industry and its machinery for negotiations and consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) has mentioned all these things. The search for increased productivity is a major function of the discussions and the right structure must increase modernisation and ensure that workers receive a fair share of the benefits.
  I trust that for all these reasons, the industry will accept that a determined effort is being made on all fronts to give this industry the right weapons and the right tasks in the nation's economy, and that for all these reasons the House will reject the Opposition's motion.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 308.

  Division No. 391.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Astor, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Bitten, John

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Bell, Ronald

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Body, Richard

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Brewis, John

  Hay, John

  Peel, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Percival, Ian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Peyton, John

  Bruce-Cardyne, J.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bryan, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  pounder, Rafton

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hornby, Richard

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hunt, John

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Clark, Henry

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cooke, Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Cordie, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cotfield, F. V.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Royle, Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Crawley, Aidan

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Crouch, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharpies, Richard

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kitson, Timothy

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smith, John

  Dance, James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stainton, Keith

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Tapse I, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Doughty, Charles

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Loveys, W. H.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Eden, Sir John

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Tilney, John

  Emery, peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Fortescue, Tim

  Marten, Neil

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Foster, Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Wall, Patrick

  Gibson, Watt, David

  Walters, Dennis

  Mawby, Ray

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Webster, David

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Grant, Anthony

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Grieve, Percy

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wylie, N. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Murton, Oscar

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Nott, John

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Joel

  Boardman, H.

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Booth, Albert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Boston, Terence

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bence, Cyril

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Archer, Peter

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ashley, Jack

  Bessell, Peter

  Bradley, Tom

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Binns, John

  Brooks, Edwin

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Barnes, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  164

  165

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Henig, Stanley

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Moyle, Roland

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Callagnan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stan

  Cant, R. B.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Horner, John

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Ogden, Eric

  Chapman, Donald

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Coe, Denis

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Howie, W.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hoy, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, L.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Corbet, Mrs. Fresa

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hunter, Adam

  Paget, R. T.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hynd, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Johnson, James (H'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rankin, John

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Richard, Ivor

  Dickens, James

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dobson, Ray

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Doig, peter

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Donnelly, Dosmond

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rose, Paul

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Ellis, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ryan, John

  Ennals, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shinwel, Rt. Hn. E.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Luard, Evan

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Finch, Harold

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McBrids, Neil

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, John

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Slater, Joseph

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Small, William

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Snow, Julian

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Calpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Gardner, Tony

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stonenouse, John

  Carrett, W. E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brig?)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Manuel, Archie

  Swingler, Stephen

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomson, Rt. Hn, George

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mason, Roy

  Thornton, Ernest

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tinn, James

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mellish, Robert

  Tommy, Frank

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, J. J,

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hannan, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Molloy, William

  Wallace, George

  Haseldine, Norman

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  166

  167

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Woof, Robert

  Whitaker, Ben

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Yates, Victor

  Whitlock, William

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mr. Harry Gourlay.

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 219.

  Division No. 392.]

  AYES

  [7.11 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dobson, Ray

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Albu, Austen

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Alien, Scholefield

  Dunn, James A.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Archer, Peter

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jeger,Mrs.Lcna(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Barnes, Michael

  English, Michael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Barnett, Joel

  Ennals, David

  Judd, Frank

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Bence, Cyril

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Bessell, Peter

  Finch, Harold

  Lawson, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Binns, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Blackburn, F.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Boardman, H.

  Forrester, John

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Booth, Albert

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Boston, Terence

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bradley, Tom

  Gardner, Tony

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Carrett, W. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ginsburg, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McBride, Neil

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Gregory, Arnold

  McCann, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  MacColl, James

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackie, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hamling, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Chapman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Coe, Denis

  Harper, Joseph

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Coleman, Donald

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mallalitu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Haseldine, Norman

  Manuel, Archie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hazell, Bert

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cronin, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mason, Roy

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Henig, Stanley

  Maxwell, Robert

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Mellish, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hooley, Frank

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Daring, Rt. Hn. George

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Horner, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Davidson,James(Aberdcenshire,W.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howie, W.

  Moonman, Eric

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hoy, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Huckfield, L.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Dell, Edmund

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hynd, John

  Newens, Stan

  Dickens, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kermeth(St.P'c'as)

  Tomney, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ogden, Eric

  Roebuck, Roy

  Urwin, T. W.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Varley, Eric C.

  Oram, Albert E.

  Rose, Paul

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Orme, Stanley

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Wallace, George

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Ryan, John

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Watkine, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Padley, Walter

  Sheldon, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Paget, R. T.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Shore, Peter (8tepney)

  Whitaker, Ben

  pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Short,Rt.Hn.EdwardCN'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Whitlock, William

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Slater, Joseph

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  pentland, Norman

  Small, William

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Storehouse, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Rankin, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Rees, Merlyn

  Swain, Thomas

  Woof, Robert

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Richard, Ivor

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Yates, Victor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thornton, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Harry Gourlay.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)

  Dance, James

  Holland, Philip

  Astor, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hornby, Richard

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hunt, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Doughty, Charles

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Batsford, Brian

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bell, Ronald

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Eden, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jopling, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Farr, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Body, Richard

  Foster, Sir John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Calbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Braine, Bernard

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Brewis, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Legge-Bourko, Sir Harry

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Cower, Raymond

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Grant, Anthony

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Burden, F. A

  Grieve, Percy

  Longden, Gilbert

  Campbell, Gordon

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gurden, Harold

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Clark, Henry

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maddan, Martin

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Nei;l

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marten, Neil

  Cordle, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur vere

  Maude, Angus

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Costain, A. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mawby, Ray

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hay, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Crawley, Aldan

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Crouch, David

  Heseltine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Monro, Hector

  Currle, G. B. H.

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  170

  171

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tilney, John

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Murton, Oscar

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Nott, John

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wall, Patrick

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Royle, Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Webster, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pearson, sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Peel, John

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Percival, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Peyton, John

  Smith, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stainton, Keith

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wylie, N. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Pym, Francis

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the House regrets the financial situation of British Railways and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the steps being
  172
  taken, together with the British Railways Board, and with the help of the Joint Steering Group, to identify and provide for the socially necessary lines; to give to British Railways a realistic efficiency target; to modernise freight handling; and to enable the railways to respond to changing traffic demands.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North): I beg to move—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have informed the hon. and learned Member that the Amendment he has on the Order Paper is not selected. A list of the selected Amendments has been published. He can speak to this Motion. [Interruption.] I repeat it for I know the difficulty of hearing in the Chamber. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member has not been selected. He can speak to this Motion.
Mr. Hughes: My Motion is not an Amendment, it is a substantive Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a question of semantics and terminology. The Motion by the hon. and learned Member is not selected, but he can speak to the Motion that is now before the House.
Mr. Hughes: With respect, surely it will be in order for me to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is not being awkward at all. The Motion in the name of the hon. and learned Member is not selected. Can I help him by saying that the points he would have wished to make if his Motion had been selected can be made on the Question which is in front of us now?
Mr. Hughes: I oppose this Bill for reasons I propose to adduce. I am in favour of a yacht harbour in Brighton under Brighton's control and management for the benefit of Brighton and its visitors.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Motion the hon. and learned Member can discuss what is in the Bill. He cannot discuss alternatives which are not in the Bill.
Mr. Hughes: I was not proposing to discuss alternatives. I was proposing to discuss my objections to the Bill, what is
174
in the Bill. For that reason, by way of exordium, I was about to say that while this Bill is in favour of a yacht harbour for Brighton I am not against a yacht harbour in Brighton, but I am against this Bill for reasons I propose to adduce. I am in favour of a yacht harbour in Brighton under Brighton's control and management for the benefit of Brighton and its visitors in a safe place for yachtsmen. The proposal in the Bill is not of a safe place for yachtsmen.
You appear, Mr. Speaker, to be keeping me under very strict control. I want to make clear why I object to this Bill, because of what is in it. That I think is what you said; that is what is in your mind. The plan in this Bill is none of the things I have just mentioned. It is two miles outside Brighton, it proposes to set up a rival township to Brighton, it is not under Brighton's control or management, and it is not for the benefit of Brighton or its visitors. Its profits, if any, will go largely to Canada. It is in a place which is unsafe for yachtsmen, as yachtsmen have written.
It has concomitants, otherwise commonly known as strings, which would ruin a beautiful and restful place, would ruin the scenery and do great damage to Brighton. I shall mention some of the unpleasantnesses which are in the Bill, indicating why I object to it. In parenthesis, I point out that it may be used as a precedent for other seaside resorts to their great damage. So I appeal to all hon. Members who sit for seaside constituencies to analyse this Bill and see how damaging it will be, if it is passed, to them and their constituents in Scotland, England or Wales—all the resorts which are within the ambit of this island.
It is a shocking thing to read that Brighton and other seaside resorts may be victims and tools of Canadian moneymaking companies and tycoons. As evidence for that, I quote from the Brighton Evening Argus of 3rd May this year from a short article. I shall not read the whole of the article. It is headed:
"Where The Money Would Come From"
The article says:
"At the first meeting of the Marina Bill hearing before the Select Committee was Mr. Fraser Martens, financial director of Allied Land Holdings Limited and joint managing

175
director of Close Brothers Ltd., investment bankers. He referred to large-scale developments carried out by Allied Land in this country and Canada. Allied Land owned 74 per cent. of the Brighton Marina Company Limited of which Mr. Martens said he was a director."
7.30 p.m.
I cite that to make it clear that the Bill will inure, if at all, not for the benefit of the people of Brighton, but for the benefit of the people of Canada. This is a very dangerous, penalising, and antisocial Bill which will damage public and free access to the Brighton beach. It will also create a terrible precedent at other seaside resorts in Scotland, Wales and England—in Hampshire, Devonshire, Yorkshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. The attractions of those seasides will be damaged, minimised and perhaps wrecked, for the private profits and dividends of a few money-seeking profiteers in Canada and elsewhere.
Let me put categorically my points against the Bill. I oppose it because it would close the foreshore and beaches to the public, who would have to pay money to go there. It would create a wrong precedent for the closure of other beaches. The money profit, if any, would go to Canadian shareholders and not to Brightonians. It would spoil a beauty spot described in a plaque set on the cliffs by Brighton Corporation many years ago and still there. It would confiscate the homes of many residents, who protest against the activities of the promoters of the Bill who wish to take their houses and their homes and make new roads there. It would destroy many shops and businesses. It would involve desecrating a graveyard and exhuming 300 corpses, which is a very gruesome feature of the Bill.
I object to it, not as a yachting harbour, which is a charming, beautiful and health-giving concept in the proper place, in a place which is safe for yachtsmen under public control, without penalising the public by making them pay to go for a swim on the beach, without penalising the private owners whose homes are being taken, and without penalising Brighton's ratepayers, who, by the Bill may be exposed to an increase in their rates.
I object to the Bill because it does not conform to the essential requirements to which such a Bill should conform. On
176
the contrary, it would combine undesirable concomitants and would inflict unjust compulsory powers. It would put yachts in a dangerous place, involving loss of life. It would steal away public beaches used for generations. It would spoil beautiful scenery enjoyed by thousands of people, young and old. It would deprive Roedean school girls and students at other schools who go down to these traditional beaches to study marine life. [Laughter.] It may be amusing to hon. Members opposite. Do they not realise that school girls study marine life? I agree with the suggestion behind the laughter that it is not their whole study, but marine life is one of the essentials which they study.
It would interfere with the useful amenities enjoyed by the blind men in St. Dunstan's Home, which is nearby. It would have a great many disadvantages for all the residents in that area. All this would be done in a way which would involve enormous cost for rich and poor alike in the Brighton area. It would expose Brighton Corporation to a vast rate increase to bring private profit, at the expense of public loss, to Canadian companies which are behind the Bill.
The scheme is wrong from many essential aspects. It has been condemned—let me put it shortly and categorically—by seafaring yachtsmen as unsafe; by economists as unsound and dangerous; by architects as incompatible and dichotomous—a good word there; by artists as repulsive and barbarous; by students as a deprivation; by residents, swimmers and walkers as invidious; and by the Save the Beaches Movement because of the loss it would inflict on people who wish to enjoy the amenities of the beach.
Let me put the case in another way from the point of view of the House of Commons. I quote from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th Edition, page 871:
"The promoters of a bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, yet, if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if It were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties."
I have already said enough to indicate that on the grounds specified in that

177
paragraph of Erskine May the Bill should be rejected. No doubt here the promoters' interests will be advanced in England and in Canada. They will make profits here and in Canada. But there is grave doubt whether any profit will emerge at all from this very dangerous scheme.
The Bill seeks statutory powers to
"enclose over half a mile of beach and foreshore and reclaim land from the sea and erect thereon car parks, filling stations, hotels, restaurants, club premises, offices, theatres, cinemas, casinos, dance halls, ice rinks, playgrounds, boat-yards, bowling alleys, shops, houses, flats and other residential accommodation."
By doing all that, it is obvious that it will divert a great deal of business from Brighton itself and thereby do great harm to it as a seaside resort.
A word now about the locus in quo. Brighton Corporation put on the cliffs many years ago a plaque stating that,
"The history of Black Rock cliffs and beaches goes back over 100,000 years, during which time relics of prehistoric animals and tools were found there. They include mammoth, woolly rhinoceros and hippopotamus".
That plaque has been there for years, it is there still, and what it says is true. The place is not only one of scenic beauty for walkers and swimmers but it is also a place of historic interest. The rocks and cliffs are rich in marine life, which students go there to study. Adjacent are several boarding schools, and the scholars there not only study the marine life but are able to use the two miles of the under-cliff walk and exercise on the two miles of greensward above the the cliffs. Nearby, as I have said, is the magnificent St. Dunstan's home for the blind, associated with the name of Sir Ian Fraser, the occupants of which enjoy the amenities of the beach and cliffs, amenities which will be destroyed if the scheme adumbrated in the Bill goes through. There is also the Black Rock swimming pool. All this is only part of the beautiful picture which will be endangered if this money-grabbing scheme goes through, not under the control of the people of Brighton but largely under the control of the majority shareholders in Canada.
What do architects think about the scheme? In the May issue of the Architect's Journal this year, the scheme was called, "The Battle of the Fore-
178
shore", underlining that it may be used as a precedent for the ruin and closure of other beaches for private profit. The Journal says that the scheme is incompatible with the safeguarding of our coastline, and it criticises Brighton Corporation in these terms:
"If every local authority worked in a similar dichotomous manner, there would be very little indeed of our natural coastline left in a few years."
I shall not quote the whole article, but the comment is made later on:
"So far from making money from the scheme, Brighton ratepayers will have to pay out for it without any certainty of its being the howling success that it must be to bring money into the town."
The Brighton and Hove Gazette of 26th May quotes those observations of the Architect's Journal with approval and adds that the scheme
"can only form a complete blockage between town and cliffs, effectively cutting off the quiet beaches further on and turning the cliff-side walk into a dark canyon".
Where it refers to the cliffside walk, the Gazette means the under-cliff walk and the over-cliff walk, the under-cliff walk amid the rocks and by the sea which has been maintained by Brighton Corporation for generations, the over-cliff walk a beautiful greensward of two miles between Black Rock and Rottingdean. In the opinion of the Brighton and Hove Gazette, both will be damaged.
From every point of view, this Bill is wrong. It is supported, and probably financed, from Canada. It is an attack upon public access to the foreshore. It will redound not to the public benefit but to private profit. It will penalise the ratepayers of Brighton. It will deprive British citizens of their long-enjoyed and cherished rights. Above all, if this Bill passes, it will be likely to be treated as a precedent for other places. I have been informed by a colleague on the other side of the House that the same sort of thing is threatened in his Lancashire constituency. It may be threatened in Yorkshire constituencies, in Essex, in Devonshire and in Cornwall. If this Bill passes, it will be a bad day for Brighton's beaches and foreshore.
The Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Sir ERIC FLETCHER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Donald Chapman: The whole House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for his summary of the case against this proposal. My hon. and learned Friend is now a very senior Member, and I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that he is well liked in every part of the House. Although hon. Members may disagree with him—I personally have a great deal of sympathy with what he says—I am sure that all will, nevertheless, agree that what he has to say on this Bill comes from deep-felt personal conviction about the sanctity of our beaches and our foreshores and from a deep conviction that the Bill is not in the wider public interest.
However, I regard the vote on Second Reading as conclusive in this House. The House gave its blessing to the project, despite the misgivings which my hon. and learned Friend and I expressed at that time; and I shall not go over the broad Second Reading case again. I regard that issue as largely decided now. Nevertheless, this much should be said about my hon. and learned Friend's criticisms. What has emerged since Second Reading shows the force of what a good many of us said on that occasion. This is not a yachting harbour scheme. It is a large piece of town development, with a yachting harbour as the excuse for its taking place on the Brighton foreshore.
The total cost was orginally estimated at about £9 million. I am not sure, but I think that the figure is probably nearer £12 million now. Of the original £9 million, only £3 million was for the harbour and the yachting facilities. All the rest was for the onshore developments set out in the long list which my hon. and learned Friend read. This is a piece of large-scale private-enterprise development in Brighton, with a yachting harbour as the excuse for doing it. This is what has emerged since Second Reading, and in affords the broad ground of the case against the Bill.
However, I shall not deal with that point now. As I said, I accept that the
180
House of Commons decided to have the Bill on Second Reading, and I wish to raise a separate matter. The Bill before us now is totally different from the one which we discussed on Second Reading. The Second Reading Bill had 36 pages. As soon as it got to Committee, the Committee deleted half-a-dozen of those pages, the main six pages at the beginning which dealt with the compulsory purchase powers then embodied in the Bill. That left us with 30 pages. But the Bill as it reaches us now has 49 pages: there have been 19 added to the 30 left after the Committee's work.
My hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that this is a new situation. The Bill is quite different in many respects. I want to talk about one particular aspect of what happened in Committee which affects our consideration of the Bill at this stage. The Committee deleted the whole of the powers of compulsory acquisition of the properties necessary to form—
Sir Lionel Heald: On a point of order. The hon. Member is talking about what we should consider in the Bill. I understood that he said that he is not against the Bill being considered, and what he has now said seems to support that. The Motion concerns only whether the Bill should be considered, and as I understood him to say that he was not opposing the consideration, is it in order for him to proceed?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Motion is "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered", and it is in order on that Motion for the hon. Member to say whether or not he thinks that it should be considered. On the other hand, he was beginning to refer to matters that were in the Bill at an earlier stage but are no longer in it, and he is not allowed to refer to that part of the Bill.
Mr. Chapman: I fully understand. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has mistaken my position. I am saying that I shall not oppose further consideration of the Bill, and I am entitled to make a speech showing why I think that other people are entitled to oppose its being given further consideration. I have been in the House long enough not to fall for that one.

181
The reason why we have some qualms about considering the Bill much further is that it is now quite different, and I am trying to explain in what respect I think that we now face a new situation. The Bill now contains no compulsory purchase powers, and the question arises whether the project can be expected to proceed without them. The approach roads, as we might broadly call them, need for their construction the purchase of some houses for demolition, and so on. The original Bill was drafted in such a way that the company would have all the powers of a local authority to buy the properties by compulsory purchase, demolish them and make the approach roads. Those provisions have now been deleted, and the Bill has no compulsory purchase powers in it.
I want to quote what the Chairman of the Select Committee said, as reported in the local Brighton newspaper. The proposers of the Bill wanted to abandon the whole of it at one point; they said that if they could not have compulsory purchase powers the Bill was no good and they might as well abandon it, but after a short recess they decided to continue. When asked about the powers, the Chairman of the Committee said bluntly, as reported in the Brighton newspaper:
"The whole scheme should be completed without resort to any compulsory powers at all."
I understand that he was speaking on behalf of his fellow members of the Committee who had deleted all the compulsory purchase powers.
The new situation is that we have a new Bill. We have a decision of the Committee to proceed without compulsory purchase powers. The strangest thing that has happened, and what gives me reason to believe that we should go some way to saying that the Bill should be stopped, is the attitude now taken by Brighton Corporation. Despite those words of the Committee Chairman, it has held a special meeting and decided, flouting the words of the Chairman of a Committee of the House, to take no notice and to promote, if necessary, a further Private Bill in order that it shall have compulsory powers to buy the houses and give them to the company for development for approach roads.
182
This is monstrous. The House of Commons said in the Committee, "You wanted this thing as private enterprise, and if you want it as private enterprise you cannot have powers of compulsory purchase." Now the Brighton Corporation is trying by the back door to say, "All right. In the end we shall not accept that. We shall ask for compulsory purchase powers, and having bought the houses compulsorily will make them available to the company." The matter is even worse than that. What it boils down to is—
Mr. Grant-Ferris Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich) rose—
Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman can make a speech. I do not want to be interrupted, because I want to be brief.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Surely the facts are that the Committee said very definitely that if there were to be compulsory powers they must be exercised by the Corporation?
Mr. Chapman: I will read again for the hon. Gentleman's benefit the words of the Chairman of the Committee:
"The whole scheme should be completed without resort to any compulsory powers at all."
If one reads the whole of his speech one sees that the Chairman made it absolutely clear that he was saying, "If you want this thing as private enterprise you must have the penalties of being private enterprise, namely, that you must proceed by agreement with the purchase of the property you need for the approach road." This is what gives me cause for alarm. The House of Commons in Committee was saying this clearly—
Sir William Teeling: Where is this reported?
Mr. Chapman: I am quoting from the verbatim report of the Committee's hearings in the Brighton Evening Argus of 9th May.
I should not like to labour the point too much, but this is really not the proper way for the Brighton Corporation to proceed. It boils down to blackmail of the people in Riflebutt Road and the other houses concerned, to sell them to the company because the threat of compulsory purchase by the Corporation is being dangled over their heads. That is

183
not proper. It is not the right way to deal with the House of Commons or with the people who live in those houses.
I understand that the houses are probably worth about £150,000. If they are so important to the company for its piece of private development it must do like any other private developer—pay up and look happy, and strike prices at which the people are willing to sell their property. If I have a field and need to buy a house to make an access road and develop the field I cannot run to a local corporation and say, "Buy it compulsorily for me so that I can carry out by private development in the field." I must pay up and look happy, and give whatever is necessary to tempt the people concerned to sell me the house.
Similarly, the Brighton Marina Company should be bluntly told that if it needs £200,000 instead of £150,000 to buy the people out it must pay up and look happy. If it costs £250,000, it must pay up. That is nothing in a total expenditure of £12 million. Secondly, we must tell Brighton Corporation that this is not the right way to deal with the House of Commons. When a Chairman of Committee has made the remark about the excision of the Clauses, it is improper, to put it at its lowest, for the Corporation to say that it will seek powers of compulsory purchase in order to dangle this threat over the heads of the freeholders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue this point any further, because he is now dealing with something which is not in the Bill.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Chapman: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have finished that point.
I would not support any Motion to delay further progress of the Bill. I regard the principle as having been decided at Second Reading. On the other hand, I have misgivings about further proceedings, firstly because the Bill is so different from what went upstairs to Committee and, secondly, because of the attitude adopted by Brighton Corporation to the proceedings in Committee. I felt it right to ventilate this point of criticism against Brighton Corporation, even though I would not
184
join my hon. and learned Friend in trying to delay the Bill's further progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Clause 39.—(POWER TO THE CORPORATION TO LEASE CERTAIN LANDS. 1933, C. 51.)
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 23, line 21, at the end to insert:
Provided that any agreement for lease or lease shall contain provision for at least two representatives of the Corporation on an organisation to be set up by the Company for the management of the undertaking on behalf of the Company after the construction of the works authorised by this Act.
This Amendment is designed to ensure that in any agreement for lease or lease granted by the Corporation for the use of the foreshore and what lies under the sea—because the Corporation intends to get the land under the sea from the Crown—
Sir W. Teeling: Where did the hon. Gentleman get the phrase:
"…any agreement for lease or lease…"?
Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. That phraseology is already used in the Bill.
I was trying to explain that the Amendment would ensure that, in any lease granted by the Corporation, there shall be a proviso that two representatives of Brighton Corporation shall sit on the board of management of the project. Part of my aim, which I have made clear at successive stages, is to introduce a greater measure of public control and participation in the project.
The original assurance I have on this point came in a letter from the Town Clerk on 6th March. He wrote:
"The promoters have complied with every requirement put forward by the Council…and have welcomed the proposal that the Corporation should be represented on the organisation which is to be set up to operate and manage the project by two nominees who will look after the general public interest."
Thus, this proviso was in effect agreed some three months ago by the town clerk in a letter to me. The purpose of the Amendment is to write it into the Bill in order that there need be no uncertainty about it. It should be written in because

185
many other similar protections for the public are listed in the Bill in various Clauses and it is a very important proviso.
I can be brief about this Amendment because, half-an-hour ago I received from the agents acting on behalf of the Company a letter containing a suggested new Clause in which they offer, in effect, to carry out the whole of the suggestion in my Amendment.
The new Clause is to be called
"Appointment of directors by the corporation"
and consists of half-a-dozen subsections which effectively set out the way in which the nominees of the Corporation are to be appointed to the board and the necessary provisions for their retirement at annual meetings, their re-election, the filling of vacancies among their number, and so on.
The whole thing is perfectly satisfactory, and I only wonder why it was not brought into the Committee. It was already agreed on 6th March in that letter to me. The Committee stage took place in May and I suspect that it needed a prod from me before the proposed new Clause was put forward. I only hope that hon. Members representing Brighton will make it clear that the intention is formally to introduce the Clause when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. If that be the case and there is a formal undertaking to that effect, I should not wish to press my Amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
Mr. Chapman: I hope that an hon. Member from Brighton will explain whether this undertaking is to be given.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 23, line 21, at the end to insert:
Provided that any lease or agreement for lease shall contain powers of re-entry by the Corporation in the event of dissatisfaction of the Corporation with the management of the undertaking, and if the Company consider that the Corporation are seeking to use unreasonably their powers under this provision, the matter shall be referred to and determined by the Minister.
I would have thought that one of the hon. Members representing Brighton would have made the position clear on the last Amendment. Their attitude is
186
rather discourteous when other hon. Members have tried to treat the House with courtesy.
This Amendment is designed to add to Clause 39 a simple provision that the Corporation shall have the right of reentry as the ground landlord, as it were, of the company and that if it seeks to use its powers of re-entry unreasonably the matter shall be settled by the Minister of Transport. I specify the Minister of Transport because powers of re-entry would effectively be confined to the harbour works, and the Minister of Transport is the effective Minister throughout the Bill on such matters. Thus, the final deter-minor of a dispute in any case of exercise of powers of re-entry would be the Minister of Transport.
Clause 58(4) says:
"If, pursuant to any provision contained in any agreement for lease or lease"—
the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) will note where those words come from—
"granted by the corporation to the Company in relation to the lands of the corporation shown on the deposited plans, the corporation exercise any power of re-entry conferred thereby…"
The subsection then goes on to specify further what happens in such an eventuality. As drafted, the Clause clearly envisages that the lease shall contain powers of re-entry—there is no doubt about that. It should be clear in the Bill that there are to be powers of reentry. It is clearly envisaged that there shall be such powers and also what is to happen in any dispute about the exercise of those powers. I am rather surprised that such a proviso is not in the Bill already. Just as the power under the first proviso to appoint directors ought to have been put in the Bill, so the power of re-entry which is envisaged in Clause 58 ought to have been elaborated and made clear in Clause 39, which deals with the lease.
I hope that the Amendment is acceptable. It is not a wrecking one. Its purpose is to make clear that there should be powers for the Corporation to take charge of this project in the event of mismanagement. I am not particularly envisaging mismanagement, but this is a huge project. Companies can go bankrupt: they can be mismanaged by the

187
people in charge. This is such an important part of the foreshore that we ought to be clear that if the project goes wrong, and if the locally elected council thinks it has gone wrong, the council should have clear powers of re-entry. There ought to be provision about what is to happen if there is a dispute about the use of these powers. This is the purpose of my Amendment, and I hope that, as it is an inoffensive one, the House will accept it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no desire to exercise these powers, and I do not think she would particularly want to see them in the Bill.
Mr. Chapman: Can my hon. Friend say from his knowledge what is to be the protection of the public in the event of mismanagement? What powers of re-entry are there, and who is to determine the exercise of them in the event of a dispute?
Mr. MacColl: I do not want to get involved in an argument about the Bill —it is not my Bill—but I am advised that in the construction of the Bill the Clause refers only to harbour works and, therefore, it is only in relation to the harbour that the problem would arise. I suppose that it would be for the courts to interpret the Act to determine what powers of re-entry there were. If there was a dispute between the Corporation and the company, presumably it would go to the courts. It is not a matter of the Executive interfering at all.
Mr. Chapman: I will not press the Amendment. I leave it that the matter will be ventilated in another place when the Bill reaches there. Again, I must express surprise that hon. Members representing the locality are not explaining any of these matters to the House. These Amendments are put in the most inoffensive terms and are not wrecking ones. They cover matters on which the public is entitled to protection and explanation. It augurs badly for the future of the Bill in another place if we cannot have any explanation about some of the most
188
important matters in it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54.—(PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO NEXT FOUR SECTIONS.)
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 35, line 3, to leave out subsection (1).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in line 6, leave out "said" and insert "next following".
Mr. Chapman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be convenient to discuss the two Amendments together.
I shall certainly not withdraw my Amendment, which is a very important one, if there are no explanations. It deals with a very suspicious proviso in the Bill. It is a very complicated Bill, and this is a very complicated aspect, and so I shall try to explain exactly the purpose of the Amendment.
Part V of the Bill, which includes Clause 54, has the heading "Protective provisions". They are provisions added largely, if not entirely, in Committee. They are new to the House. Their purpose is to protect the public interest when the work gets under way and when it is completed. Some of these provisions are very important. Clause 54 governs the whole of the remainder.
Clause 54(1) states:
"For the protection of the corporation the next following four sections of this Act shall unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Company and the corporation apply and have effect."
So this is a governing Clause for the next four Clauses following. What the subsection says is that the next four Clauses shall apply and have effect unless the Corporation waives them. So:
"unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Company and the corporation"
they shall apply. Clearly, the power in that subsection is for the corporation to get rid of any of these provisions carefully put in the Bill to protect the public interest.
Let us look at some of these protective provisions. The one in Clause 56 is

189
perhaps the most important public protection in the Bill. The Clause is something that was talked about on Second Reading. It was because of the letter on this point from the town clerk that I read out that a number of my hon. Friends were reassured on Second Reading that the project could go ahead. Clause 56 says that the company shall not start any of the works unless the corporation is satisfied that it has enough money to complete them. Long though it is and detailed though its provisions are, that is the main purpose of the Clause. There are some subsidiary parts, but that is the main one. So no work shall begin until enough money is shown to be in the kitty to the satisfaction of Brighton Corporation.
This was a very proper provision to put in, as we all agreed on Second Reading. Having reluctantly given permission for this to be done on the foreshore at all, we did not want a situation to arise in which there would be a half-completed project littering the coastline and left for somebody else to finish off or demolish. So it was an appropriate provision to have in the Bill.
Clause 56(7) says:
"The Company shall secure, throughout the construction of the works, that as little disturbance as is reasonably practicable…is caused thereby to the amenities enjoyed by residents of and visitors to the borough."
I could go on. These are all very important provisions to protect the public interest. They have all been put into the Bill to protect the public interest. Yet they are preceded by a subsection which says that the Corporation shall have power to waive any one of them. According to Clause 54(1) the Corporation can otherwise agree in writing that none of these protective provisions shall apply.
Frankly, this is wrong. There is no point in having the provisions in the Bill unless they are mandatory. If they are only to be permissive to Brighton Corporation, every one of them could have been written into the lease which the Corporation will give to the company, and there was no need to bother the House of Commons with half of them if the Corporation was to have power of yes or no over them. The only purpose of putting them in the Bill was to assure the public that they were there, that they were mandatory, that they could not be jiggered about with and that the pub-
190
lie could rest happy that the project would go ahead, there being assurances about money, disturbance, planning and the rest. It would be wrong for the provision to be left in the Bill so that Brighton Corporation could at some future date decide that it did not want to bother with any of these protections of the public interest. That is precisely what Clause 54(1) means. I am at a loss to know how it has remained in the Bill in Committee and I hope, particularly as assurances were given on Second reading that provisions protecting the local residents, visitors and the general public interest would be firmly in the Bill, that we can agree that it should not be possible for Brighton Corporation to waive these protective provisions. This is a "must" for me, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment. Otherwise I shall feel bound to divide the House.
Sir L. Heald: In opposing this Amendment I should first indicate why I am doing so and, indeed, why I am speaking in this debate. I have no interest of any kind in this matter. Indeed, the boundary of my constituency is some 70 miles from Brighton. My constituency has no seashore, though we do have a marina on the Thames, and that is the only matter in common.
I am here today on a question of principle, from my point of view as a Member of Parliament, to protect against the use of this kind of procedure in a case of this sort. There is no question of anything being out of order. This is a question of practice, convention and principle.
This is a Private Bill, and I have made inquiries and can find no one who has ever seen before a piece of paper like this Amendment Paper in connection with a Private Bill on the Floor of the House. Occasionally Amendments are made on questions of principle, but these matters that we are discussing today are matters eminently for consideration by the Committees. They are dealt with in accordance with the very old and admirable procedure which enables the matter sometimes—I hope this is not disrespectful—to be dealt with more expertly and efficiently than on the Floor of the House, because expert witnesses are called; there is cross-examination by counsel, and the Committee itself is not constituted on a party basis, with two sides. It comprises Members from all parts of the House,

191
particularly having the actual technical knowledge or, at any rate, experience in this field. It is entirely inappropriate that these sorts of matters should be discussed here.
I suppose I am innocent in these affairs, but one wonders why it has been thought necessary to occupy the time of the House with this kind of thing. The hon. Member has just said that he does not understand why this Clause remains in the Bill. I think we can enlighten him. Anyone who knows anything about Private Bill procedure would be able to enlighten him. It is a standard form of Clause, a common form of provision in protective Clauses which are arranged and agreed between the promoters and the other parties. The promoters and the other party in this case have decided that they wish to proceed in accordance with the ordinary practice, and the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect to him, is stepping into this matter and introducing nothing but confusion. Parliament does not interfere with the terms of well-known forms of Clause. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the matter a little further he would have found that there are two other places in this Bill where the same thing occurs, and he has not objected there.
Mr. Chapman: With respect, one of the next Amendments deals with it.
Sir L. Heald: Yes, quite. The matters are dealt with exactly in the way in which they are always dealt with in Private Bills. This is really quite futile. I can use only that word. It is, I suppose, open to one to conclude that there are private objects in these Amendments, though I do not say that they are the only objects. But this is the most extraordinary procedure.
This Private Bill has been through the Commons Committee. We find that certain matters of great importance have been considered there, matters which are decisive—I believe no one is complaining about them—as to the protection that ought to be given. That having been done, the matter is dealt with according to the Private Bill practice, and common form Clauses are accepted. To suggest that it is remarkable to have this sort of provision is misleading the House, and I
192
suggest that the time of the House ought not to be occupied in this way.
This is a matter eminently for the Committee. Of course, if this sort of argument were put before either the Lords Committee or the Commons Committee, it would be laughed at. It is the sort of thing that goes through without any discussion. It is dealt with by those who are concerned with these matters. The Floor of the House of Commons is not the place to discuss it, and I respectfully suggest that time should not be wasted in this way.
Mr. Chapman: Once again I say that we are entitled to have an explanation. I disregard what the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said, because he misunderstood my purpose. I did not move to delete the Clause. I simply moved to alter the wording in order to remove the right of waiver.
With great respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the whole point. On Second Reading we all understood that we were given a very clear understanding that the public interest would be inviolably protected in giving away some of the foreshore for this piece of private development. All I am trying to do is to make those protections inviolable. I have every right to do so. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the action of Members of Parliament in trying to protect the wider public interest is almost unconstitutional or outside our Parliamentary practice. I looked up the precedents long before I put down the Amendment. He need not worry about the legitimacy of my action in that respect.
I am very sorry that we have had no help from the Brighton Members. I thought that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might be able to help us on the question whether it is necessary to leave these words in the Bill or whether it would be proper to delete them. However, if we are to have no reply, although I will not force this Amendment to a Division, I express the hope that in another place Members will look twice, three times and perhaps four times at this Private Bill before they let it through. We are going through a farce where perfectly legitimate points about the public interest are not being answered.

193
I hope that note will be taken of this fact when the Bill reaches another place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member wishes to withdraw the Amendment?
Mr. Chapman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57.—(PLANS OF WORKS INCLUDING WORKS AFFECTING APPARATUS.)
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 39, line 26, to leave out 'arbitration' and insert:
'the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient if the five following Amendments were discussed at the same time, that is to say, in page 39, line 29, leave out 'arbitration' and insert 'determination';
in line 46, leave out from 'be' to end of line and insert:
'referred for determination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962'.
in page 40, line 4, leave out 'arbitration' and insert:
'the Minister of Housing and Local Government'.
in line 10, leave out 'arbitration' and insert:
'the Minister of Housing and Local Government'.
in page 41, line 4, leave out from 'or' to 'shall' and insert:
'determination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under this section'.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Chapman: As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be convenient to dispose of the other five Amendments at the same time.
The Amendment asks for some explanation. Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) thinks, I think that in the House of Commons we can still ask for explanations of very complex legal matters. This asks for a correct understanding of what the Bill does and does not do.
194
Clause 57, as I understand it, governs the submission of plans by the company to the Corporation. I presume that it governs them in the sense that at this point of the Bill—and this is precisely the assurance I am seeking—the plans are to be submitted to the Corporation as landlord of the project, and not to them as planning authority.
As I understand it, the Clause seeks to say that before any of the main works authorised in the construction of this marina shall be proceeded with, the plans shall be submitted to Brighton Corporation and they shall be considered and approved by the Corporation, if possible, subject to any conditions, and that if there are any unacceptable conditions or anything like that, the matter shall be settled by arbitration.
I am not clear whether this overrides the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. Surely any private developer of any project such as this will continue, as is provided for in Clause 67, to be subject to the provisions of the town and country planning legislation. If this is so, why is it, when the plans might be disapproved or approved with unacceptable conditions, that the appeal is to arbitration and not, as is usual in town and country planning matters, to the Minister? Does it mean, for example, that if there is a disagreement between the company and the Corporation on this point an arbitrator will settle the matter between them, but that a local resident who objects to any of the features can ask for and provoke an inquiry by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under normal town and country planning legislation? Will there have to be an arbitration between the company and the Corporation and perhaps on top of that, under the town and country planning legislation, public inquiries and all the other things in protection of the public interest under the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
If a local resident or anyone aggrieved or not liking these plans can still ask the Minister to intervene to hold inquiries and to submit the whole thing to town and country planning legislation, I am satisfied. I simply want to be assured that this power of arbitration is not an alternative to the powers under the town and country planning legislation

195
and that it will be in effect the Minister, in the normal manner, who will settle these matters in the event of disagreement between the local people, the company and the Corporation. I do not want it taken out of the hands of the Minister by anything in Clause 57. If my hon. Friend can assure me that is not the case, I shall be very happy.
Mr. MacColl: The position is not quite so simple and I cannot give a one-word answer.
The letter of 29th September, 1966, on behalf of my right hon. Friend gave outline planning permission, subject to various conditions, for the development of the land the subject of the application to include a yacht harbour, marina, club, restaurant, public houses, and so on. Clause 5 authorises construction of the harbour works and access roads and this carries with it planning permission for this specific development and to that extent duplicates the decision letter.
But by virtue of class 12 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1963, the detail of the development, design, external appearance, siting within the limits of deviation and means of access, will need planning permission. Clause 40 empowers the company to carry out other developments—club premises, restaurants, hotels and so on—and the proviso of subsection (1) of that Clause ensures that the Bill does not confer planning permission for those purposes, and therefore for those purposes the company would have to go back to the decision letter.
In Clauses 6 and 7 a number of minor works are mentioned which might not come within the development and therefore might not require planning permission. They are not the sort of things about which my right hon. Friend would feel that he was particularly good at arbitrating. My right hon. Friend is a resourceful man and always willing to be helpful, but his knowledge of caissons, cofferdams, slipways, culverts and syphons is not that of an expert arbitrator and, therefore, with becoming modesty, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he would rather not have responsibility for those things.
Mr. Chapman: Does that mean substantially that this a Clause which, as drafted,
196
will not interfere with the ordinary town and country planning legislation provisions applied to the major part of this development and that if there is objection to any of the detailed features of the large-scale development, there will be the normal opportunities for people to make their views felt and for the Minister to call in matters for decision in the usual way?
Mr. MacColl: When receiving guidance and then asked a question, one goes back to the beginning and reads it all again. Broadly speaking, what my hon. Friend has said is correct. On the main matters of development, things of the sort which would normally arise in planning, the decision letter would be binding, but any dispute about interpreting the decision letter would be dealt with under town and country planning legislation.
Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged. My hon. Friend has explained the matter to my satisfaction and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58.—(RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS AND TRANSMISSION OF POWERS TO CORPORATION.)
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 41, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the third 'the'.
I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is very good at explaining to me how usual these things are, but I wonder whether he can explain how this provision got into the Bill at all. It is covered by Clause 54(1), which he was so anxious to preserve and which effectively governs the following four Clauses, for it says:
"For the protection of the corporation the following four sections of this Act shall … apply…."
Clause 58 is therefore governed by Clause 54, but in Clause 58 there is a repetition of the words
"Save with the prior consent of the corporation, the Company shall not construct or erect…"
For reasons which I do not understand, we here have a double-banked power of the Corporation to waive the provisions of Clause 58.
However, that is not the real purpose of the Amendment. It is an important

197
Amendment about which we should have some explanation. The Amendment would mean that the Corporation could not in any circumstances give permission for any of the buildings of the proposed marina to be higher than the height of the cliffs. As the subsection is drafted, the Corporation could give consent for the buildings to be higher than the cliffs.
As the Bill stands, the corporation could change its mind and agree to buildings higher than the cliffs. If my hon. And learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) feels strongly about any of the minor parts of this Bill he ought to feel strongly about this one, because one of the things promised to objectors to the proposals all the way through was that never would any buildings be allowed to be higher than the height of the cliffs. There are many occasions when this has been firmly promised.
Take first of all the Minister's findings in giving planning permission for the propect. Paragraph 13(2) of the Minister's planning permission is quite clear:
"No building shall be of a height greater than the level of that part of the cliff-top which is immediately north of the site of the building."
The Minister made the position absolutely clear. He was not the only person to do so. Paragraph 154 of the hearings before the Inspector appointed by the Minister, dealing with the promoters' case, says:
"In the first place none of its buildings would exceed the height of the adjoining cliffs, while most if not all of this development would be hidden by the latter from any residential developments or public thoroughfare immediately behind the site."
The promoters offered this scheme on the understanding that there would not he any buildings higher than the cliffs. Then we have paragraph 206, which is the case for the corporation in supporting the promoters. This says:
"Even though the height of new buildings would be kept below the height of the cliff face…"
In other words, this was an assumption made by the Corporation in good faith that it was thoroughly agreed that no buildings would be higher than the cliffs.
The promoters gave their pledge, the corporation supported them on the basis of that pledge. The Minister gave permission for the whole project on the
198
understanding, and the clear condition that no buildings would be higher than the cliff. I would have thought that this was one of the things which would reassure people living locally, and those who want to protect the amenities of the area from the impact of this project on the whole scene. This was an assurance cardinal to the scheme.
Yet here we have in this Clause as drafted the power of the Corporation to waive this requirement. I object most strongly to this. It was one of the things which persuaded people that this scheme could be allowed, because it was clear that there was an assurance, never to be broken, that the cliff height was the limit for the height of the buildings. I do not understand why the Corporation is retaining the power to waive this requirement. I do not know why it is necessary and I very much hope that the House will agree to delete it.
This is a perfectly reasonable request to make, based on all the understandings that have been arrived at all the way through this Bill with regard to this problem. For this reason we should, very firmly and clearly remove from the Bill the power of the Corporation to waive this requirement.
Mr. Martin Maddan: I am not a Brighton Member, but I am acting in an honorary capacity for Brighton because I have taken an interest in the Bill and I wish to see it succeed. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that this Clause does not have any diabolical intention behind it, although the point that he raises is important. The purpose of the words which he seeks to strike out are to enable the erection of structures like lamp-posts, guard rails, maybe harbour lights, or something of this sort during 125 years—the period with which the Bill is concerned. It would be wrong to take out of the hands of the Corporation the power to decide matters of that sort. The Corporation has no interest in allowing permanent buildings to be built to a height greater than the cliff top. But it must safeguard its position to be able to allow the erection of necessary ancillaries in the scheme for the good of the scheme.
8.45 p.m.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Northfield will give some

199
credence to the good intentions of the Brighton Corporation to undertake its duties as the local authority in the way stated, and that he will allow the flexibility which the initial words in the Clause give.
Mr. MacColl: There may be some point in the argument about whether the structure is development within the planning Acts.
In general, I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said. The condition in the planning permission was quite categorical in limiting the height of the buildings to be erected. The Minister would not be parlous in the matter. If there were a proposal to do something of this sort, he could always call it in for planning decision directly by himself, even if there were a likelihood of the planning authority agreeing to it, or if it got beyond that stage he would have power under the Town and Country Planning Act to make a discontinuance order. There would, therefore, be some reserves left. However, this is a matter which could be looked at in another place.
Sir L. Heald: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was kind enough to suggest that I might be able to help him. If his Amendment were adopted, there would be a positive statutory prohibition against anything of this kind, no matter what anybody did. It would mean that no lamp posts or navigation beacons or anything of that kind could be put up, and anybody who put up such things would be infringing the Act. The Amendment is quite futile.
Mr. Chapman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think it futile, but the Clause flies in the face of every assurance given to people who opposed the Bill, which was that nothing would be built above the height of the cliff. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may smile, but that was the assurance given locally. The whole justification for the scheme was that the height of the cliffs would mask the development below and that none of the development would protrude above the cliffs so that it spoiled the view of the cliffs and impinged on the development which already existed.
200
I was much encouraged to hear my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that this is a reasonable proposition. I am grateful to him for pointing out that this is the sort of thing which can be considered in another place. I will do my best to ensure that it is considered in another place with a view to deleting this power of the Corporation to waive the requirements.
I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend state categorically that the Minister's view, as set out in the original permission, was that there should be a limit on the height of buildings. In view of the silence of Brighton Members, I was encouraged by what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said, namely, that the Corporation is willing to give an assurance that there will not be any buildings above a certain height erected. However, as it has been said that this matter can be amended in the House of Lords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 41, line 30, after 'Act', to insert:
unless the Company shall first have offered to sell undertakings to the Corporation on terms to be agreed or to be settled according to the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, and'.
The Amendment raises a matter of public policy. It concerns what happens to the undertaking if at any time the promoting company decides to sell it.
The Bill sets out the powers of the company. By Clause 52, it will have power to sell the undertaking to another private enterprise company. I have no objection to its wishing to sell the enterprise. The House decided on Second Reading that it should go ahead on the basis mainly of private enterprise development. I have misgivings about that, but they have been partly relieved by the ability of the Corporation to nominate directors, and I also understand from the town clerk that the company is willing to share the profits of the undertaking with the local authority. To some extent, therefore, I am satisfied that the Bill as finally drafted contains a mixture of public and private enterprise. Although it is on a smaller scale than originally I would have admitted, it certainly goes part of the way to meet my point of view.

201
The undertaking is, however, mainly one of private enterprise and by Clause 52 of the Bill the company is to have power to sell the undertaking to another company at any time. There is a protective provision to Clause 52 in Clause 58(3). It is for this reason that I move the Amendment to Clause 58 rather than to Clause 52.
Subsection (3) of Clause 58 states:
"The Company shall not exercise the powers of section 52 (Power to sell or lease undertaking) or section 53 (Power to mortgage undertaking) of this Act except with the previous consent of and subject to such terms, conditions and restrictions as may be approved by the corporation but such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld".
The effect of that subsection is that the company shall not sell the undertaking except with the permission of Brighton Corporation.
My intention in the Amendment is to insert a provision that if the company reaches the point of wanting to sell the undertaking, it shall first offer it to Brighton Corporation. This is a reasonable request. We are to have a company which, quite unusually in modern law at least, is being given the right to develop the public foreshore and to do all kinds of things which require special Acts of Parliament to enable them to be proceeded with.
We are envisaging the position that the company becomes fed up with the proposition and the project or has a tempting offer to sell it. I have no objection to its wishing to sell on a future occasion. All I say is that when it reaches the point of wishing to sell, for what may be legitimate reasons, the company should first be asked to offer the undertaking to Brighton Corporation in case at that point it is thought best to say, "With full experience and the benefit of hindsight, we now think that this should have been a public enterprise and it would be better to incorporate the whole thing under Brighton Corporation."
The Amendment therefore provides that at the stage of exercising its powers to sell, the company shall not do so unless it has first offered to sell the undertaking to the Corporation
"on terms to be agreed or to be settled according to the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965"
202
and then subject to any other terms and conditions which the remainder of the subsection imposes.
If I am asked why reference is made to the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965, the answer is because the company itself chose this Act to govern its operations when it wanted to compulsorily acquire houses and land in the first instance. Under this Measure, the company will have certain powers in respect of acquiring rights of way, easements and so on, and there would be no disadvantage in the Amendment being accepted in that it would mean that the full market value, under the terms of the 1965 Act, would be paid in the event of its being acquired. Only in the event of terms not being agreed voluntarily and freely between the company and Brighton Corporation would this apply.
Nobody would be able to force the company to sell to the Corporation. That is not envisaged by the Amendment. It merely ensures that, in the event of the company being anxious to part with the undertaking, Brighton Corporation should have some power to secure the first refusal.
Mr. Maddan: There is a division of labour between hon. Members and in considering this, the last Amendment, it may be appropriate, therefore, if I reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) is seeing to it that, if there is a Division, the majority of hon. Members will be voting with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) has only just returned from abroad and that is why he is not replying. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should be intervening.
I am glad to have this opportunity to help the passage of the Bill, which is important for the area. I assure the hon. Member for Northfield that Brighton Corporation would have no objection to there being an obligation on the company of the type the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, should the company wish to sell the undertaking. However, as drafted—and in view of the wording of Clause 4—the Amendment would mean that if the company should wish to arrange a letting of a part, it

203
would first of all have to offer that part for sale to the Corporation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had that in mind when drafting the Amendment.
A similar situation might arise if the company even wished to obtain a mortgage. Nor do I think that the hon. Gentleman had that in mind. Apart from other considerations, the Corporation would first have to be offered a sale if the company wished to get a mortgage. Brighton Corporation has no objection to the Amendment in principle but, in view of its defects, it is objectionable and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
Mr. Chapman: The reply of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) reassures me. It means that I can look forward to a more perfectly drafted Amendment of this type being tabled and accepted in another place. My Amendment—a bit of amateur private enterprise drafting—may not be acceptable, but I trust that a similar Amendment, but drafted in more official form, will be accepted in another place.
Mr. Maddan: I have no authority, on behalf of Brighton Corporation, to say that such an Amendment will be moved in another place. However, in view of the spirit of what I have been told, I think that we can take it that the Corporation would consult with the company to see if a satisfactory formula can be found.
Mr. Chapman: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I oppose the Motion. The Standing Order speaks for itself. This is a very important, complex and long Bill and it is right that another place should have an opportunity of considering the various points made in this debate. The Standing Order states very clearly:
"Not less than a clear day's notice, in writing, shall be given by the agent for the bill to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, of the date proposed for the third reading of a private bill; and no such notice shall be given until the day after that on which the Bill has been ordered to be read the third time."
As I say, this is a complicated Bill. It is a Bill involving millions of £s. It affects the lives of, perhaps, millions and, certainly, of thousands and tens of thousands of people. Above all it is a Bill that affects Her Majesty's right to the foreshore and the access of the public to the foreshore. For all these reasons I submit that those who have to consider it in another place should have an opportunity to consider our debate, and the Bill's complexity and length. I respectfully submit that the Standing Order should not be suspended. What is the Standing Order for if not to be obeyed—not in a cavalier way cast aside? The Bill should take its ordinary course.
Question put and agreed to.
[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, signified]
Bill read the Third time and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS
[22nd June]
Resolution reported,

WAYS AND MEANS

  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES
  That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any fees required to be so paid by any Act of the present Session to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899.
  Resolution agreed to.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL

  Clause 1.—(RULES FOR TESTING ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES.)
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "may" and insert "shall".
  It is always very difficult in drafting a Statute to know whether one should use "may" or "shall"—whether it should be mandatory or permissive. On many occasions when I myself have suggested that the word should be "shall" in order that it should be mandatory that something should be done I have been told that "may" is quite as mandatory as "shall". I hope on this occasion that the Government will see the force of the argument that the Clause in this respect should be made mandatory by the insertion of the word "shall".
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am prepared to tell the hon. Member straight away that I accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. David Webster: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, after 'Kingdom' insert:
  'together with all passenger-carrying ferries and commercial vessels of over 5 tons Thames Measurement, including those which propel themselves by means of chain'.
  The Chairman: It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the fol-
  206
  lowing Amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 1, after 'ship', insert 'passenger ferry or commercial vessel'; No. 8, in line 11, after 'ship', insert 'passenger ferry or commercial vessel'; and No. 9, in line 12, after 'ship', insert 'passenger ferry or commercial vessel'.
  Mr. Webster: Thank you, Sir Eric, for suggesting what I think is a good idea. May I thank the Minister of State for accepting the first Amendment. It was completely in line with what he said on Second Reading he would do.
  I am convinced that the Amendment I have moved should be equally commendable to him and I look forward to his immediate acceptance of the Amendments in this group. The hon. Gentleman knows the arguments and we want to get on as quickly as possible, so I say no more except that we look forward to what he is to say.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to reject this series of Amendments. There are some drafting difficulties. For instance, Amendment No. 7, by inserting "passenger ferry or commercial vessel" between "ship" and "registered in the United Kingdom" in the first line of subsection (2) would achieve nothing since the subsection would apply only to such ferries and vessels if they were registered in the United Kingdom and if they were so registered that is done anyway.
  It is not on purely drafting grounds that I oppose the Amendment. The Amendment and the consequential Amendments fall into two distinct parts. The first part would bring in commercial vessels between 5 tons and 15 tons. They were exempt under the 1889 Act. To include them now would certainly increase the number of surveyors by a great amount and put manufacturers to increased cost and trouble. I would be prepared to face that risk if there were any real evidence that the statutory requirement now proposed was necessary, but I have no evidence of that at all. In the last three years, so far as I can discover, there has been only one instance of a vessel of this kind having anchor trouble, and even then there was no evidence that it was due to a defect either in the anchor or in the cable.
  The second part of these Amendments brings in chain ferries. They are already

  207
  covered by a variety of regulations and rules including those under Royal grants, Local Acts and Statutes. There are at present, I believe, only six ferries operating. Until fairly recent years their chains were made of iron. Now they have either been converted or are being converted to high tensile steel chains. These steel chains are of the same dimensions as the old iron ones, which means that their strength is substantially greater than the old ones and the safety margin is correspondingly greater. These high tensile steel chains are tested in proving houses to strains far greater than anything they would undergo in practice, so it is not necessary to include them in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Webster: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
  'insofar as they may supplement or amend the standards laid down in Schedule 2 to the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899'.
  The Chairman: With this Amendment go Amendment No. 5, in line 12, at end insert:
  (b) provide for tests to be carried out by any of the bodies of persons mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899.
  And Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 42, at end insert 'except for Schedules 1 and 2'.
  Mr. Webster: These Amendments relate to Schedules in the previous enactment. Much of our complaint is that the Bill is too permissive. I shall not go on to say something about censorship and assert that we live in too permissive an age, but perhaps in Parliamentary matters we do.
  We seek to tighten things so that we can define precisely what we are giving the Department powers to do. In the 1899 Act—the handicraft of our ancestors—there are 21 Clauses and 3 Schedules. This is a very modest Measure giving wider powers. It is better to give precise details so that the smaller manufacturers and others can have some decision about the requirements as to stress with which they will have to comply.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I sympathise a good deal with some of the points
  208
  made by the hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster). As I understand it, the intention of the Amendment is to retain the standards of testing laid down in Schedule 2 of the 1899 Act as basic requirements for testing. So many of these requirements are obsolete. One of the requirements was that every 15 fathoms of chain cable had to be tested to a tensile strength and that every three links of every such length to breaking stress. I am advised that with modern welding methods this is completely unnecessary. We want to bring the rules up to date. Manufacturers will see precisely what is required of them, because this will be stated in the rules, which are subject to annulment by the House, if it so wishes.
  The point behind our idea of doing this by rule is that, as these things change, as technology advances so speedily, without having recourse to long-winded legislation we can, not merely bring the rules up to date, but keep them there. This procedure is much in line with Section 34 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949. It is a highly respectable procedure. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Webster: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 19, after 'other' to insert 'qualified or certificated'.
  I do not want to labour the point, because it was made amply by the interrupted speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who has already addressed the House of Commons with some considerable eloquence today. The point my hon. Friend made is worthy of consideration. It was made on Second Reading. I believe that the Minister of State said that he would consider the point. I now ask him if he has considered it and what is the result of his consideration.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have indeed considered the point. At first sight it seemed to me to be a very sensible and reasonable Amendment. There is not, in fact, any specific certificated qualification. It is intended, when we come to the rules, that this work should be confined to the surveyors of the Board of Trade or the

  209
  classification societies. All the Board of Trade surveyors have academic qualifications. For example, they will have a first class certificate of competency as marine engineers, and they will have a degree. On top of that, they have a great deal of practical experience, which is essential for this job. Most surveyors of the classification societies have similar academic degrees, but there are some whose skill is learned entirely by experience and training, without the obtaining of a certificate.
  It would be extremely difficult to use the term "certificated" in this respect. If we left out "certificated" and fell back on the word "qualified", this would in the long run mean qualification as judged by the Board of Trade or the classification societies, which is the position at present. Our proposals are very much in line with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, for which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) was responsible and for which we are extremely grateful. That Act provides that
  "If the Minister or such person as he may authorise for the purpose is satisfied, on receipt of declarations of survey … he shall … issue a cargo ship safety construction certificate."
  The words are "such person as he may authorise for the purpose". There is no question that the Board of Trade or the classification societies would ever appoint anyone who was unfit. The difficulty is to define precisely what is meant by fit or not fit. It must be based on experience.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Webster: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 12, to leave out 'or master'.
  The Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 13, at the end to insert:
  'and if the owner of the ship be beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government the Admiralty Marshal may attach a writ to the ship for the sum due by way of fine'.
  Mr. Webster: Thank you, Sir Eric. It cannot be said that we are guilty of dragging our anchor. In fact, we are going on at a commendable speed, and I hope that the Minister of State, as a result of the fair wind we are giving
  210
  him tonight, is now in genial enough mood to accept what we suggest here, which is only reasonable.
  Some hon. Members may not have served on the Standing Committee two and a half years ago—it is almost in the history books now, and there is, at least, a document of some size recording our proceedings—but in those days the fine was set at £100 on the owner and on the master. We on this side pressed for the fine to be higher. The Bill now before us shows that the Ministry have more than granted our request in the sense that they have put up the penalty to £400, but we must draw attention again, as we did in the Standing Committee, to the difficulties which the master may have.
  One may hear about the disreputable owner, and it is sometimes thought that such arguments go beyond the point of reality, but the master himself may well be in difficulty. I welcome the presence in this debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who has been almost swept to sea this week and who has had a good deal of experience of the activities of a master during the recent storms. A master comes into a mooring and ties up to a buoy. The buoy is attached to a chain cable, but the master has no knowledge of the harbour authority's arrangements for securing buoys.
  This seems to us to be a good reason, apart from the reasons we deployed two and a half years ago and on Second Reading on this Bill, for paying special attention to the position of the master. I know that our arguments are fresh in the Minister's mind. I am sure that he has read them between the debates of a certain university union. Now that the fine has gone up I should have thought it right and reasonable that the master should be exempted. Should there be unscrupulous owners or a fault of the harbour authority, the onus should be on them.
  We have tried to make it even more reasonable for the Minister to accept the Amendment by putting down Amendment No. 11, so that there shall be a prohibitive element physically to prevent a vessel going to sea. The Minister has accepted our first Amendment, for which we were grateful, and has with great courtesy

  211
  rejected the next three, with all their consequent Amendments. I think that one little present deserves another. We have been reasonable to him, and I hope that he will accept the Amendment because it is sound and reasonable.
  The "Masters' Union", or whatever is the society of master mariners, felt strongly about the Bill when it was in Committee two and a half years ago. It is true that the Bill has figured on the front page of The Times, but I believe that had the union known that the Bill was going through again it would have written to us about it. No doubt it has written to the Minister and he will accept its argument and the Amendment, which is reasonable in view of the increased fines.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: As a master of a ship—a British registered ship—I must spring to the support of my fellow masters and say that it is most unfair to expect the master to be mulcted to such a heavy fine as £400 for something which is really the primary responsibility of the owners.
  The master has quite enough on his hands already, looking after the general safety of his ship, without having such a penalty put upon him. There must be cases where he picks up moorings where there is no means of knowing whether the chain underneath is sound. He must pick up some mooring because he may know that the ground is bad holding ground, and there may be nothing else. I understand that if he picks up the mooring and it parts he is in for trouble if it is not stamped.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Bill does not deal with moorings.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: If the master drops his anchor and fouls the chain of a mooring, and then that chain parts, I can see all kinds of arguments as to what has really happened. I do not press the point unduly, for it would not be right to do so. The main point is that the fine has been increased from £100 to £400, which is too much to expect the master to have to bear. It should be confined entirely to the owners.
  Mr. John Wells: I ask the Minister to look at our Amendments together, because the essence of the thing
  212
  is that we feel that the fine is a very heavy burden to put on masters in their personal capacity. By Amendment No. 11 we would take reasonable steps to see that a ship could not slip through the hands of authority, and the owners thus get away with it. Therefore, all is well if he accepts the Amendments together.
  I think, with respect to them, that my hon. Friends who have spoken about picking up a mooring are slightly at fault, because, as I understand the Clause, it is only the ship's own equipment with which we are concerned. If this is so, it might be possible in a foreign port for a British registered ship to lose her own equipment. She could lose it at sea, indeed. In those circumstances, she would hastily have to acquire other equipment which would become her own.
  Sir Francis Chichester bought some new equipment in Sydney. No doubt it was very good, but one might get the case of a ship putting into a minor port where the master had to pick up new equipment. No doubt he would get the best cable he could proceure but it might not be stamped for the purposes of this Bill and therefore, through no failing of his own, the master might well have on board unstamped and unacceptable equipment.
  Mr. Webster: As there is an absence of Schedules of any sort in the Bill, no other Government will have any guide if they wish to fit in with our arrangements.
  Mr. Wells: I understand that this applies only to British ships. They do undoubtedly pick up equipment abroad. The Minister of State has served abroad himself. No doubt he has picked up things abroad in his time. But the fact remains that that which he picked up abroad may not have been stamped in accordance with this Bill. Let us consider the unfortunate master concerned. He can be in trouble.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some comfort by excusing masters from this fine. I do not object to the increase in the fine. It is what we on this side pressed for during the previous Committee stage. The heavier fine is a good thing provided that masters are not liable to pay it themselves personally. Amendment No. 11 gives the Minister a safeguard if he thinks that, by letting the master off, he might lose a victim if the owner was abroad or unobtainable.
  Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Amendments. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us whether there are any other penalties in any other Act of Parliament to which masters of ships are liable as this Bill would make them liable. If there are not, then this Bill is setting a precedent. I commend these Amendments, particularly Amendment No. 11, which would put the blame on someone else as well.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) for the extreme reasonableness with which the Committee as a whole has dealt with these Amendments and my answers to them. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I was very alarmed about him. I did not know that the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) was literally in the same boat. I am glad to see them both here.
  There is point in what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has just said about an accident abroad and the picking up of an anchor which is not stamped. We have power in Clause 1 to make exemptions and I give an undertaking to the Committee that these exemptions shall, in the rules, cover a contingency of this kind. For the rest, I regret, in view of the way the Bill has been treated in Committee, that I must ask hon. Members to reject even this Amendment.
  It is possible to have ships registered in the United Kingdom but owned, say, in Canada or Bermuda or the Bahamas, and it may not be possible to penalise infringements in the case of such a ship unless it is possible to prosecute the master when it comes to a United Kingdom port. It is not an especially onerous duty upon the master—and I recognise that the hon. Member for Nantwich has specialised knowledge of this—to make an inspection and see whether his anchors and cables are properly stamped. As I understand it, the master is, and must be, responsible for every other piece of equipment in the ship, all the safety equipment and so forth, and I do not see any reason why he should be exempted from the duty of ensuring that his anchors and cables are right, too. The fine is stiff, but it is in certain circumstances—I shall come to the second Amendment in a
  214
  moment—the only way we can enforce the regulation.
  The second Amendment that we are considering is really misconceived. It is a way of extracting the fine once it has been levied. But we are talking about summary jurisdiction, and if the owner is in the Bahamas we cannot get at him even to levy the fine. So this would not help us in the way that the hon. Member for Maidstone suggested.
  I think—if I can be as reasonable as hon. Gentlemen opposite—that it is reasonable to have "master" in this as well as "owner", and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  9.30 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: At the outset I would thank the Minister for his kind and sympathetic remarks. It is certainly for my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and myself and a number of other hon. Members a relief to be on the surface and not underneath, as we nearly were yesterday. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the cannon with which the race was being started was inaudible because it was so weak compared with the thunderbolts going round among hon. Members. It seemed almost as if we had met our just deserts. It was certainly very alarming.
  I apologise for not having attended some of the previous discussions on the Bill, much to my loss. There seems to be most admirable sweet reasonableness prevalent in the discussion now. However, I do not think that the Minister's statement about the second Amendment does justice to the situation. I think that it was our Amendment in Committee two years ago which suggested that the fine should be put up to what it is now. Therefore, the severity of the fine is very much in line with what hon. Friends of mine and I would recommend.
  But to put the master as liable is very unfortunate. The shipmaster of a company which cannot otherwise be reached may be in a position to be completely victimised on some technical ground. We cannot foresee the regulations, though I am delighted to hear of the exemptions that the Minister has in mind. Nevertheless, is would seem a pity if on some technical fault the shipmaster were left alone

  215
  to carry the brunt of this. I do not think it would be suggested that we should seek to penalise the shipmaster merely as a means of getting at the owner. This is specious.
  Under the Bill the shipmaster appears to be in a very vulnerable position. It is the purpose of the Amendment to deal with this situation. It seems to me that if the owner of the ship is, as suggested, in the Bahamas or some other considerably better climate than ours, and is sunning himself and swanning around, as we know some of them do, the idea of a writ on the mast of the ship and its being prevented from leaving port will produce a most rapid response even at great distance by way of the ship's office and the demurrage charges which would fall on the ship. I should have thought that the threat of a writ on the mast would make the owner's firm pay up through the various forms of money available to the ship and that the master should not himself be involved. I feel strongly that the Amendment would be a much more equitable way of arranging affairs and producing the effect that we want under the Bill. In short, Amendment No. 11 produces the most devastating weapon for bringing the ship's ownership into discipline, and one could scarcely improve upon it. That is why I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude to that point.
  Mr. John Wells: Would the Minister answer the point that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell)? Is there to his knowledge any other legislation by which a ship master is personally liable to penalties of this sort for so comparatively a minor matter from his point of view?
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Yes, under the load lines regulations the master as well as the owner is liable. The Amendment says:
  "… may attach a writ to the ship for the sum due by way of fine."
  There cannot be a sum due by way of fine until one has actually prosecuted and got a conviction. If we leave out the master, leaving solely the owner, and he is in Bermuda, one cannot even start proceedings. Up to a point the master is vulnerable if he does not do his job. If he does not inspect, he is
  216
  vulnerable. If he inspects and finds that the equipment is not adequate, he does not sail until it is.
  Having looked at this point, and having seriously considered the representations of the masters' associations which the hon. Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Mr. Webster) said were quite strong, I think it would be reasonable to reject the Amendment.
  Dr. Bennett: I take the Minister's point. It is a point of great substance, of course, but is it not possible in some way to word this provision so that the master is the titular victim of the legal process and can be convicted in person? The liability could be expressed as being upon the owners, though access to the owners in our courts could only be achieved by chasing the master. This is the only way that I can see, in broad terms, of getting the results which both sides of this Committee desire.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I cannot see how we could do that. It is an attractive idea, but there is no point in having fines, especially large fines like this, unless the fines can be extracted when they are levied. I cannot see any way in which the hon. Gentleman's wishes could be met.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Dr. Bennett: With Clause 1 in its present form I feel that the Bill lacks many of the points which I regard as valuable in the recognition of the various types of vessel, which come to mind readily enough, to which this Bill should apply. We have discussed them in another life, in another Parliament. We have discussed them in the Second Reading debate, sketchily enough, in this Parliament.
  However, I am still far from satisfied that the phraseology of this Clause does justice to the situation, in so far as it does not admit that any other types of vessel which deserve the safeguards of this Bill have developed virtually since 1899. The various headings come readily enough to mind. There are the expensive but physically somewhat small yachts. There are the hovercraft, which I understand have been referred to, in proceedings which I missed, as first

  217
  being subject to an Air Navigation Order, but now being regarded as land vehicles. If they are subject to an Air Navigation Order and are regarded as being aeroplanes, as a seaplane pilot I can affirm that an aeroplane when on the water is subject to the rules of seafaring standards in the prevention of collisions at sea and other safety standards.
  It was well known about the aircraft which used to be built for the Navy before the war, or for marine purposes, that if an aircraft was capable of alighting on water, it must have certain fittings, and, for instance, carry a brass bell which had to be rung whenever the aircraft was anchored in a fairway during fog. Therefore, I do not think that the advent of the Air Navigation Order is a new line of approach to the hovercraft.
  Mr. Webster: As a mere Fleet Air Arm instructor-pilot taught by the American Navy, I have tried to follow this argument. When one of these vessels is taxiing or going across the surface of the water, does my hon. Friend measure drift by the current of the water, or by the wind velocity? As he knows, there is a triangle of velocities by which one works out how these things taxi and on what basis it should be done and what course to steer. With his great expertise, can my hon. Friend quickly explain?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member would not be in order in giving any explanations, because on this Motion we can discuss only what is in the Clause. There is nothing about hovercraft in the Clause. We debated that on Second Reading, but we cannot debate it now.
  Dr. Bennett: The point that I was trying to attain in my argument was that hovercraft, be they land vehicles or air vehicles, in fact ply for hire over water and are probably therefore registered ships in that sense, or licensed ferries. Indeed, they carry an execeedingly valuable freight in human lives. I have seen them being towed up Portsmouth Harbour—they do break down—and they have to anchor in emergencies. I would have thought that the anchoring of hovercraft was identical with the process of anchoring ships. Therefore, with valuable lives on board, it is vital that they
  218
  be deemed to be ships. If they are included under the heading of ships registered in the United Kingdom, all is well, but I have grounds for fearing that they may not be.
  Nor is it clear to me whether yachts are properly included under this same heading. My dilemma on this matter is that which I briefly mentioned on Second Reading. To my certain knowledge there is a species of yacht, which is known as a registered yacht, which has to submit itself to various procedures and to have various compartments measured and so forth. Indeed, the cubic capacities of these compartments are carved in the deck beams—I only hope they are not metallic. That kind of registered yacht is one to which certain legal attitudes apply. For instance, such a yacht is a fit subject for the raising of a mortgage, as several hon. Members know.
  9.45 p.m.
  The dilemma in which I find myself is that there is another kind of registered yacht classified at Lloyds—18 A 1 or 100 A 1, or whatever classification is allocated to it—and I find myself in genuine uncertainty about whether both categories are offered the protection of the Bill. I should be much obliged if the Minister could enlighten me.
  Those are the matters of general significance. There are new types of ships plying for hire, whether with cargo or with passengers, which have been invented since the old days of the original Act, and I am also concerned to know whether the extremely numerous yachts around our coasts are brought sufficiently within the provisions of the Clause.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I endorse the plea that the Minister should clarify the position of hovercraft. We know that for some purposes they are treated as ships while for others they are treated as aircraft and come within the purview of the Air Registration Board. However, the position appears to be unsatisfactory and almost analagous to the difficulty in which, we are told, many years ago, a booking clerk found himself eventually ready to pronounce "Cats is dogs and rabbits is dogs, but this 'ere tortoise is an insect and there ain't no charge for that." I would hate us to get into that position with legislation about hovercraft.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I agree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) that the legal position about hovercraft is highly unsatisfactory. If I can trespass roughly on the rules of order, may I tell the Committee that we have been considering this matter for a considerable time and it is the hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to produce legislation which deals with hovercraft and not with ships or anything else.
  Mr. Webster: Will that be in the next Gracious Speech? If so, we shall be queueing up to hear it.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I could not possibly give that assurance, but I hope that we shall be able to introduce it during the next Session. I do not know whether it will be in the Gracious Speech.
  Yachts are not covered by the Bill unless they are of 15 tons or more. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham referred to the two forms of register. One is Lloyds Yacht Register which is not a statutory body, although it is a jolly good thing to get one's yacht into that.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is that 15 tons gross or net?
  Mr. Mallalieu: Net.
  Dr. Bennett: In the way that type of shipping is generally reckoned, that means about 40 tons gross.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I find it difficult to work out these things.
  Sir R. Russell: Subsection (8) says:
  "The powers of the Board of Trade under this section or any rules made thereunder may be exercised by the President of the Board of Trade, any Minister of State with duties concerning the affairs of the Board, any secretary, under-secretary or assistant secretary of the Board or any person authorised in that behalf by the Pesident."
  What is meant by "any person authorised"? Will it be another officer of the Ministry and how many officers will be involved? How many can be given this power? Is this a precedent, or is this provision contained in other legislation?
  Mr. Mallalieu: We have already touched on this subject. I cannot give the total number, but it is the intention by this to mean and to specify in the
  220
  rules surveyors of the Board of Trade or surveyors of the classification society. There are precedents for such a provision.
  Mr. Webster: I thank the Minister of State for what he has said about hovercraft. Possibly if we had known about this two and a half years ago the Bill might have got on a bit quicker. I am grateful for his assurance that this will be the case, and that there will be early legislation to clarify the position regarding hovercraft, because otherwise I would have had to regret that it was not in the Bill. I very much appreciate what he has said. We all know, without labouring the point, that this is something which is rapidly developing, and we must look after the safety arrangements, particularly with the complicated aspects of this.
  I will underline the Minister of State's assurance that he has given to the House, and I hope that we will have legislation about hovercraft early next Session. I would remind him that when he was asked, on the subject of hovercraft, why the late Mr. Redhead had given me assurances, as a result of which I withdrew a new Clause to bring hovercraft within the purview of the Bill, the Minister said, in an unguarded moment, that he wanted to get his Bill.
  I hope that the Minister of State is not falling into the same difficulty of wanting to get his Bill on this occasion. We would remind him of his promise and hope that it will be fulfilled early in the next session. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) is in some little anxiety on a technical point that is far beyond me as a mere landlubber. I think that he is worried about tonnage.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: The hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which I put to him the other day mentioned a figure, I thought, of 50 tons, but I am now looking at the debate and I see that it is 15 tons. Then we get the question of the 168 lb. anchor. The two figures do not seem to make any sense whatever. No yacht of 15 tons will carry a 168 lb. anchor. Therefore, if the 15 tons really means anything at all, the anchor to go with that sort of tonnage ought to be somewhere about 50 lb. or probably 60 lb. I dare say that a prudent owner would

  221
  probably go for a C.Q.R. of 70 lb., but 168 lb. and 15 tons just do not make any sense for a yacht or any other kind of ship. That is something which the Minister might have a look at before the Bill gets to another place. I think that somehow incorrect advice has been taken on relating the weight of the anchor to the tonnage of the ship.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: There is a point here. It is possible under the rules to alter the minimum size and I will certainly have a look at this point.
  Dr. Bennett: May I also ask the Minister of State to have another look at a further point, because I cannot believe, in all the time that I have spent in and around yachts and the sea, that there is a certain threshold, to wit 15 tons, at which a yacht becomes registered. I have had many small yachts of my own which have been registered insofar as the deck beams have the measurements carved in them, and all the rest of it.
  I see a difficulty here which I hope the Minister will not regard as a nugatory one, and it is that the registering of ships, with Lloyds or other classification, exposes them to the periodic surveys and re-surveys at which the continued serviceability of the anchors and chains would be reassessed. This removes any consideration, such as we had two years ago, on the subject of second-hand or older anchors and chains. The re-survey certificate in the case of a merchant ship will see to that. A yacht has a classification from Lloyds or Bureau Veritas or from some other body.
  What about the registered yachts of considerably smaller size than the size of 15 tons which the Minister mentioned? In the tonnage to which he is accustomed, a 15-ton yacht is a big yacht. There are not many of them afloat now. If they are registered in the ordinary way without a classification, there will be no suitably qualified people who have a right to appraise or reappraise the ground tackle which such ships carry. I should be obliged the Minister could shake this one down and find out the definitive answer to a complex point.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: It is a complex point, but there is a partial answer, that vessels of 15 tons and over must be registered and vessels of under 15 tons
  222
  can be registered. That covers a fair number of vessels. It is up to the owner.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]
  Mr. Webster: On a point of order. We did not realise that we should go at this fantastic speed. The Order Paper refers only to the Committee stage. Is it regular to go further without consultation through the normal channels? I appreciate that the Leader of the House, in a laughing mood, said "progress" when he said that we would discuss the Bill today. But, as I say, the Order Paper refers only to the Committee stage. I do not know whether we are authorised to go further.
  The Chairman: It is a matter for the House. I have to put the Question. If objection is taken, objection is taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Webster: I am glad to see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has left the question of parsnips and swedes and is now taking an interest in anchors and chain cables. We hope that he will take part in our proceedings. We wish that he had done so before.
  I should like to pay the Bill a little tribute, because it is a little bit of the history of Parliament. I wish it a fair wind. Probably I am the only landlubber who served on the Committee two and a half years ago. On 19th May, 1965, we started the Committee stage of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Shields.
  Dr. Bennett: I think that my hon. Friend has got slightly disorientated. Was it not the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)?
  Mr. Webster: Yes. I get confused with shields and swords and anchors and chain cables. But the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill without, as he said, an all-party Motion, with no members of the Liberal Party or Conservative Party subscribing to it. He had not invited them. Then he was surprised when we started to ask questions—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered
  That the Proceedings on the Anchors and Chain Cables Bill and of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Webster: I am grateful for that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it gives us a little more time to consider the Bill with the thoroughness which it deserves. These are probably the longest proceedings in terms of calendar months for any Bill through the House of Commons. I hope that their Lordships will examine it thoroughly and improve it, if they can, and that as the rules of the other place are more flexible, Amendments will be made to incorporate certain improvements.
  The Bill may be an object lesson to the Government in the matter of safety of life at sea—the Minister of State knows that I had the privilege of introducing a similar type of Measure in the year before the Bill first attempted to get through the House—to give it a little greater priority. The Bill has come on twice as second Order, first on Wednesday, 31st May, and then on a Monday twelve days later. On each occasion the Bill received just over an hour's deliberation. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was speaking on one occasion and another of my hon. Friends on the other occasion. So great was our enthusiasm that we all stayed up practically all night a week ago when the Bill was expected to come on, and so did the Minister of State and the nice people in the Box. I am glad that at long last the Bill has been given the importance which it merits by being brought on at a decent hour of the evening.
  224
  I welcome the Bill although I regret that its scope is not wider. Nevertheless, we have had assurances and we are grateful for that. Some funny expressions have been used. The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who has taught me practically all the naval history I know, said at one stage, when talking about the naval examination for anchors:
  "A favourite question is:
  'Question: If you were the officer of the watch of a ship at anchor and it came on to blow hard and the anchor was dragging, what would you do?
  Answer: Let another anchor go, Sir.
  Question: If it came on to blow harder?
  Answer: Let go another anchor. Sir.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th May, 1965; c. 47.]
  I think that even the Minister of State has learnt a bit more about anchors, as I certainly admit that I have done, during the lengthy deliberations on the Bill. I wish it well as it proceeds to another place and I hope that their Lordships, many of whom are salty and nautical, will be able to improve it before they send it back to us.
  10.3 p.m.
  Dr. Bennett: As one who at all times has shown a certain interest in the subject, I would like to say how glad I have been that the Bill has received fairly careful attention and detailed thought and that a number of valuable Amendments have been made which have improved it considerably. I am not least glad to know that we have had assurances that when Parliament has abdicated from its right to legislate on these things and passed the whole matter over to delegated legislation, the delegated legislation will not be too long in coming and will, I trust, be comprehensive and common sense.
  I trust that we shall have the orders before the House as soon as the necessary improvements have been effected in another place. I shall look forward with great interest to see the rules to which the Bill in due course will give rise.
  I have only one slight note of sadness on which to finish my consideration of this large and important Bill, and that is the unaccountable absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). I hear, however, that the Patronage Secretary

  225
  has been very generous with him lately in the question of pairs, hoping, perhaps, that he might not notice when next the Bill was coming forward.
  Mr. Webster: I gather that he is saving his strength for the Travers Foundation.
  Dr. Bennett: I think he has already shot his bolt on that one.
  I hope that we will see some sense come out of this Measure, that we will get the rules to which we are entitled and that they will deal with this matter properly, although I still dislike the form in which this has had to be done.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Many hon. Members have had a fair amount of fun about the Bill. Indeed, there was one point when it was almost becoming a House of Commons joke. Nevertheless, out of the fun has come a considerable amount of education and good. There are a number of extraneous matters to which I might refer, but I must not do so since they are not included in the Measure.
  I am grateful for the consideration which hon. Members have given to, and the general welcome that has been expressed for, the Bill. This is a good Measure. It is concerned with safety
  226
  at sea, which we all have at heart, especially those who go to sea. I hope that the Bill will improve that safety.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    STAMP DUTIES (TRANSFERS BETWEEN ASSOCIATES)
    Resolved,
    That further provision be made as to the circumstances in which instruments are to be exempt from stamp duty under section 42 of the Finance Act 1930.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Resolution to be reported; Report to be received Tomorrow.
    Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
    Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY
  Supplementary Benefit, St. Neots (Urgent Cases)
  Supplementary Benefit, St. Neots (Urgent Cases)
  Departmental Premises, Camberwell Road
  Departmental Premises, Camberwell Road
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Voluntary Agencies)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Voluntary Agencies)
  Widow's Benefit
  Widow's Benefit
  Dependent Children
  Dependent Children
  Deputations
  Deputations
  Exceptional Needs Grants
  Exceptional Needs Grants
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses (European Economic Community)
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses (European Economic Community)
  Medical Services (Welbeck Colliery Village)
  Medical Services (Welbeck Colliery Village)
  Ambulance Station, Brough
  Ambulance Station, Brough
  Doctors (Designated Areas)
  Doctors (Designated Areas)
  Mental Institutions (Security)
  Mental Institutions (Security)
  LEGAL AID SCHEME
  LEGAL AID SCHEME
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SOCIAL SERVICES)
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SOCIAL SERVICES)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Wage and Salary Settlements
  Wage and Salary Settlements
  Workshops for the Blind (Selective Employment Tax)
  Workshops for the Blind (Selective Employment Tax)
  National Joint Council for Workshops for the Blind
  National Joint Council for Workshops for the Blind
  Employment (Mexborough and Wombwell)
  Employment (Mexborough and Wombwell)
  Employment (Discrimination on Religious Grounds)
  Employment (Discrimination on Religious Grounds)
  Employment (Lanarkshire)
  Employment (Lanarkshire)
  Dental Surgeons (Division of Establishments)
  Dental Surgeons (Division of Establishments)
  Redundant Workers, Market Rasen
  Redundant Workers, Market Rasen
  Employment and Redundancy (Scotland, Wales and North-West)
  Employment and Redundancy (Scotland, Wales and North-West)
  Government Training Centres, Scotland
  Government Training Centres, Scotland
  PORT OF PARA AGREEMENT
  PORT OF PARA AGREEMENT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mogadishu (British Council Library)
  Mogadishu (British Council Library)
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (ACTS OF AGGRESSION)
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (ACTS OF AGGRESSION)
  ANGLO-ARAB CORRESPONDENCE (PUBLICATION)
  ANGLO-ARAB CORRESPONDENCE (PUBLICATION)
  ARAB COUNTRIES (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  ARAB COUNTRIES (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  JORDAN (REFUGEES)
  JORDAN (REFUGEES)
  UNITED NATIONS (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  UNITED NATIONS (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  SOUTH ARABIA (AID)
  SOUTH ARABIA (AID)
  CHINA
  CHINA
  EDUCATION ATTACHES AND COUNSELLORS
  EDUCATION ATTACHES AND COUNSELLORS
  UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY
  UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY
  EGYPT (MRS. FAHMY)
  EGYPT (MRS. FAHMY)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Social Security Building, Stockport
  Social Security Building, Stockport
  NO. 1 BRIDGE STREET (LIFT REPAIRS)
  NO. 1 BRIDGE STREET (LIFT REPAIRS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXHIBITION OF PAINTINGS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXHIBITION OF PAINTINGS)
TECHNOLOGY
  Dragon Reactor (Experiment)
  Dragon Reactor (Experiment)
  National Research Development Corporation (Loan Interest)
  National Research Development Corporation (Loan Interest)
  Director of Hovercraft (Appointment)
  Director of Hovercraft (Appointment)
ROADS
  Airports (Road Links)
  Airports (Road Links)
  Southampton-Midlands
  Southampton-Midlands
  South West (Expenditure)
  South West (Expenditure)
RAILWAYS
  Deeside Line
  Deeside Line
  Victoria Station, Nottingham (Closure)
  Victoria Station, Nottingham (Closure)
  Electrification Schemes (Expenditure)
  Electrification Schemes (Expenditure)
  Carriage Building Work (Wales)
  Carriage Building Work (Wales)
TRANSPORT
  Central Licensing Office, Swansea
  Central Licensing Office, Swansea
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tanzania (Pensions and Compensation Payments)
  Tanzania (Pensions and Compensation Payments)
  India (Aid)
  India (Aid)
AVIATION
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Members)
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Members)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Studies)
  Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Studies)
  Foodstuffs (Long-Term Agreements)
  Foodstuffs (Long-Term Agreements)
  Tariff Negotiations
  Tariff Negotiations
  Tools (Import Duty)
  Tools (Import Duty)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  St. Kitts (Mr. Gaskell)
  St. Kitts (Mr. Gaskell)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  St. Laurence's Primary School, Northfield
  St. Laurence's Primary School, Northfield
  Nuclear Reactor (Amaldi Report)
  Nuclear Reactor (Amaldi Report)
  Technical Subjects (Surplus R.A.F. Equipment)
  Technical Subjects (Surplus R.A.F. Equipment)
  Overseas Students (Grants)
  Overseas Students (Grants)
  Collection of Nineteenth Century Costumes (Purchase)
  Collection of Nineteenth Century Costumes (Purchase)
  Veterinary Colleges
  Veterinary Colleges
  Welsh Students
  Welsh Students
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Arms Salesman (Departmental Staff)
  Arms Salesman (Departmental Staff)
  Middle East (Export of Arms)
  Middle East (Export of Arms)
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Aden
  Aden
  Royal Air Force (Chipmunk Aircraft)
  Royal Air Force (Chipmunk Aircraft)
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (Papers)
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (Papers)
  Aircraft Carrier (South Arabian Waters)
  Aircraft Carrier (South Arabian Waters)
  INDIA (VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER)
  INDIA (VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Bank Deposit Interest)
  Income Tax (Bank Deposit Interest)
  3½ Per Cent. War Loan
  3½ Per Cent. War Loan
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Exchange Control (Relaxation)
  Exchange Control (Relaxation)
  Sovereigns
  Sovereigns
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Prohibited Currency (Mails)
  Prohibited Currency (Mails)
  Parliamentary Votes (Aden and Arabia)
  Parliamentary Votes (Aden and Arabia)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Child Neglect and Cruelty (Prison Sentences)
  Child Neglect and Cruelty (Prison Sentences)
  Street Offences Act, 1959 (Prison Sentences)
  Street Offences Act, 1959 (Prison Sentences)
  Race Relations Act
  Race Relations Act
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  London County Council and Greater London Council (Administrative Costs)
  London County Council and Greater London Council (Administrative Costs)
  Planning Permission (Tiverton)
  Planning Permission (Tiverton)
HOUSING
  Condition of Houses (Sample Survey)
  Condition of Houses (Sample Survey)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (BANQUETING PRICES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (BANQUETING PRICES)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Programme Journals (Monopoly)
  Programme Journals (Monopoly)
SCOTLAND
  Feuduties, Multures and Long Leases (Scotland) Bill
  Feuduties, Multures and Long Leases (Scotland) Bill
  St. Patrick's High School, Coatbridge
  St. Patrick's High School, Coatbridge
  New Comprehensive School, Petersburn
  New Comprehensive School, Petersburn
  Hospitals and Clinics (Nursing and Midwifery Staff)
  Hospitals and Clinics (Nursing and Midwifery Staff)
  Hospital Building Schemes
  Hospital Building Schemes
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Medical Prescriptions (Number and Cost)
  Medical Prescriptions (Number and Cost)
WALES
  Forestry (Contour Ploughing)
  Forestry (Contour Ploughing)
  Welsh Economic Council
  Welsh Economic Council
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Economic Planning Councils (Official Documents)
  Economic Planning Councils (Official Documents)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
The Lord Glendyne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Hayter—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

IMMIGRATION: ADMISSION OF DEPENDANTS
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what documentary procedures are available to their agents in the countries of origin of immigrants for the purpose of checking the conditions and family relationships of applicants for vouchers and for discovering whether, for example, such applicants have adopted sons or step-sons approaching eighteen years of age who, though unskilled and not themselves voucher holders, would infiltrate our labour market.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): None, my Lords; because a voucher is issued to a Commonwealth worker without regard to the number or age of his dependants. A person granted a voucher is, however, asked to complete a form (MIG.I) declaring what dependants he may wish to have admitted to the United Kingdom, and this information is kept on record. The children, including adopted children and step-children, of a Commonwealth citizen resident here are not entitled to be admitted without a voucher unless under 16 years of age, and we normally admit those who are older only if they are under 18 and coming with, or to join, both parents or the only surviving parent.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I wish to ask a few supplementary questions to amplify that information, which is all I have been able to obtain so far. First of all, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the system at present existing can work only, as one might say, on a tight line through linguistic "know-how", which seems to be missing in this country among our officers—officers from the Department of the noble Lord—and among those who are employed as agents in the various countries of the Commonwealth? That position will continue, of course, unless the Treasury allocate enough pay for a great increase in linguistic officers. There are 600, and only 23 know Urdu or Hindustani. That does not seem to

3
help very much in the case of the enormous sub-continent of India. The ports of exit are so numerous, compared with the few ports—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as the ports of exit in the Commonwealth are so many compared with the ports of entry in this country, something like a consular service in all those ports of exit would seem to be needed to meet what is required?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am well aware that the existing system works only through what the noble Earl has called "linguistic 'know-how'", but that "know-how" exists. I mentioned in my original Answer the completion of a voucher form. When that is received the voucher holder has to fill in another form stating his dependants. That cannot be completed without linguistic "know-how" on the part of our various agencies abroad; and I have no information that lack of knowledge of Urdu or Hindustani is proving any handicap, either abroad or at our immigration posts in this country.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: But, my Lords, how do we still manage to import 30,000 dependants every year when the vouchers for last year amounted to only about 5,000? The number of dependants is so enormous that it sounds as if the vouchers were granted without sufficient inquiry into the conditions of the families and what was likely to eventuate regarding the number of their dependants coming in.
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords; I cannot agree with that. Not so long ago the number of vouchers issued was 20,000. It is now down to 8,500; and this has a general relationship to the number of dependants likely to come in. That is why we now ask voucher holders to complete a form stating the number of their dependants. Apart from that, however, we insist on the right of a man who is granted a voucher either to bring his dependants with him or to have them join him after he has settled in this country.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Lastly,
4
may I ask him two further supplementary questions on unemployment? Is the noble Lord aware that there were over 17,000 seeking jobs on May 1, 1967? Why are vouchers to the extent of 8,500 still being granted when there is that amount of unemployment? In view of that amount of unemployment, does it not mean that there is unfair discrimination against our own people in regard to the sums of money that go out to these immigrants by way of National Assistance?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords; it does not mean that at all, because vouchers are issued only under either heading (a)—that is, when there is a job waiting for that person and he has been applied for by an employer℄or, under heading (b), which applies to doctors, teachers, nurses and so on and therefore does not add to unemployment. The noble Earl may recall that when the P.E.P. Report (which dealt particularly with unemployment) was issued, at a time when the unemployment situation generally was not good, there were only 6 per cent. of immigrants then unemployed.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I thank the noble Lord.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether investigation is made in the country of origin regarding the dependants of an immigrant for whom he has a financial responsibility but about whom he remains silent?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the immigrant fills in the form and remains silent about dependants, it is unlikely that they will be admitted later if they come to this country. The purpose of filling in the form is to enable dependants to be checked when they come, so that we do not encourage young people to come in who are not dependants.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Is my noble friend aware that he has missed the point? Do we allow immigrants to disregard their responsibilities in their own country with regard to their dependants?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are not in a position to make inquiries as to whether the dependants named on the form are in fact being maintained by their parents.

PETROL PRICES
2.45 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the price of petrol.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power is now examining various proposals for higher prices of petroleum products, including petrol, which have been put to him separately by individual oil companies under the voluntary early warning arrangements. He hopes to complete his examination shortly.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that helpful and informative reply, may I ask whether he can give an indication of when he is likely to be able to make an announcement; and, secondly, whether Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to the excellent proposal in the Sunday Express yesterday to offset any price increase in petrol by a corresponding reduction in the excise duty so as to avoid an increase in the cost-of-living index?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the first question, my right honourable friend is still considering representations. With his great knowledge of this subject the noble Lord will be aware how fluid such a situation is. My right honourable friend has not yet made up his mind about agreeing to any increase, and it is therefore impossible to say when he will make such a decision. As soon as it has been made, he will announce it.
With regard to what the noble Lord described as the "excellent" suggestion made in the Sunday Express article, he will accept from me that all such suggestions will of course be considered by Her Majesty's Government, but he will no doubt have regard to the fact that one penny off the duty on fuel oil will cost the Treasury £29 million, and one penny off motor spirit £14 million. These are not sums that any Chancellor
6
Of the Exchequer can conjure up out of thin air.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, surely the figures that the noble Lord has given are for a full year. Are we expecting the Canal to be blocked for a full year?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was quoting for a full year because I have not figures for any other period. How long the present situation will last, it is still too early to forecast.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the suggestions now current is that if there is a price increase it should be a differential one which would have the effect of throwing the greater part (if not all) of the extra cost on to the price of petrol for the private motorist. Is the noble Lord aware that that kind of solution will be totally unacceptable to the people as a whole?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have already said that it is too early to forecast whether there will be an increase. If one is decided upon, obviously the most convenient method would be an increase on the wholesale prices of the different oil products—all of them. I would add that there is no compulsion on any firm to increase its prices, if an increase is agreed, by the agreed amount or indeed by any amount if it does not wish to do so.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, excellent as is the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, from the point of view of saving the customer money, is it not wholly uneconomic and contrary to economic law? If petrol is to be scarce—and that is the premise—then obviously the only way to make it go round will be either to ration it or to raise the price. If you offset the price rise by dropping the taxation, have you not vitiated the whole purpose of the exercise?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, nothing in what I have said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, indicated to any degree whatsoever approval of the proposal. While I do not wish to discuss the whole matter, certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has said is an important factor.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether, in the event of the Canal's being reopened, he anticipates any great increase in the cost of petrol?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this would entirely depend on when the Canal is reopened. The noble Lord will be aware that already freight rates have increased from around 30s. a ton to £7 a ton. There are many other factors in increased cost which are already taking effect. It would depend entirely on when the Canal is opened. But certainly if supplies were readily available as they were before from the Middle East, and could come to us readily, and there was no increase in cost, there would be no possible justification for increasing the price of oil products.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that when his right honourable friend makes his Statement with regard to the price of petrol he will include a statement with regard to the availability of supplies of oil?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bring that point to the notice of my right honourable friend, but I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the situation is fluid; it is changing almost from day to day, and there are important factors such as the availability of Nigerian oil and what is going to happen about Libyan oil. It will depend entirely on when my right honourable friend is able to announce a decision about increasing prices of oil products, if increases are to be agreed.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that there will be no rationing?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is quite impossible to give an assurance that there will be no rationing. I can give an assurance that no decision whatever has been taken about petrol rationing; but, as noble Lords will be aware, we have taken the precaution of making, or beginning, preparations in case rationing should eventually be necessary.

FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT TO NEW YORK
2.51 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making a Statement on the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to New York.

STRENGTHENING OF MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Strengthening of Marriage Bill standing in my name, which has now for some time headed the list of Bills awaiting a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I should like to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time by explaining my reasons for wishing to withdraw the Bill. Since the First Reading of this Bill, six events of great significance on this subject have taken place. They are: the divorce debate in your Lordships' House on November 23, 1966; various statements by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall make a short reference later; discussions between the Law Commission and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and members of his Committee; the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's Report, Divorce, the Grounds Considered; the issue of the Law Commission's working paper on Family Law, Matrimonial and Related Proceedings—Financial Relief, and the publication by the Sunday Times of an opinion poll purporting to show 72 per cent, in favour of divorce for breakdown of marriage.
Leaving out of account any distinction between divorce solely on the grounds of breakdown and divorce with breakdown as an additional reason, I think it is clear that divorce for breakdown is supported by the most reverend Primate's Committee; the Law Commission; the Scottish Law Commission (who, unlike their English counterpart, actually recommend it); an overwhelming proportion of the public, if opinion polls are worth anything, and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, albeit not in his official capacity. May I make some short quotations from some of the

9
speeches made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? In the debate on November 23 last, Hansard reports him as saying:
"I joined the Divorce Law Reform Association before I was married, over forty years ago, and I should not like it to be thought from anything that I have said, or anything I have not said, that I am in any way unsympathetic to this Committee's Report. The one thing that everybody seems to be agreed about is the universal condemnation of our existing law, and it is my hope that to-day's debate may prove to be a basis for some rational reform of our law upon which Parliament can agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 262.]
In the debate on the Second Reading of the Matrimonial Causes Bill, on February 14, 1967, the noble and learned Lord said:
"I have heard it said that this change might delay the rationalisation of our divorce law. If I thought that, I should not be putting this Bill before your Lordships' House. I am delighted to hear that the gap in views which separated the committee appointed by the most reverend Primate and the Law Commission is being narrowed, and I am as much in favour as any Member of your Lordships' House of a real rationalisation of our law. … But it is clear, I think, that we shall not see a Bill in that field this year. I see no real reason why we might not see it next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 177.]
This statement was picked out and welcomed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and repeated again by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply, although he made is clear that such a Bill might be brought in as a Private Member's Bill. In his speech to the National Marriage Guidance Council, a copy of which he was kind enough to send me, he strongly advocated divorce for breakdown, but made it clear that he was speaking as an individual and not in his official capacity.
In view of all that I have said, I cannot doubt that more comprehensive legislation than is envisaged in my Bill will be introduced and passed into law in the comparatively near future—I sincerely hope next year. I also sincerely hope that there will be parallel and contemporary, or even earlier, legislation for Scotland. How splendid it would be if the Putting Asunder Committee and the Law Commission could reach agreement! I should not want to take any action which might conceivably make such agreement more difficult.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I think, if I may say so, that the noble Earl is acting wisely in asking leave to withdraw this Bill. Discussions in this field are going well, and it is sometimes a mistake to try to rush things. To those who are concerned to see this branch of our law reformed I would only say that I do not think they need be unhopeful.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. If this Motion is agreed I shall ask the leave of the House to move and explain the six Commons Amendments en bloc. They are, I think, relatively non-controversial, and that course might conduce to a saving of your Lordships' time.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [220] as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–6]
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("avoid") insert ("unreasonable")
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from ("neighbourhood") to ("may") in line 8.
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 15, and insert—
("In the event of any contravention of a condition imposed by the licensing authority under this section, the keeper of the refreshment house.")
Clause 2, page 1, line 24, after ("renewed") insert ("(including a direction that no condition is to be imposed)")
at end insert—
("(2) Any party to an appeal under subsection (1) of this section may appeal from the decision of the magistrates' court to a court of quarter sessions.")
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
Administration of refreshment house licence and duties thereon
(".—(1) Licences under the Refreshment Houses Act 1860 and the duties thereon shall cease to be excise licences and excise duties respectively.
(2) Section 15(2) of the Finance Act 1949 (application of excise code to management by local authorities of duties transferred to them under that section) and section 15(7) of that Act (orders giving effect to the transfer of the duties) shall cease to have effect in relation to licences under the said Act of 1860 and the duties on those licences.
(3) In section 16 of the said Act of 1860 (list or register of licence holders to be kept in each area) for the words from "at the office" onwards there shall be substituted the words "by the licensing authority, and the authority shall whenever required, give to the clerk to the justices for their area or any part of it a copy or extract from the list or register".")
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 en bloc. The first three of these Amendments concern Clause 1. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this Bill deals exclusively with places of refreshment which do not sell alcoholic liquor and are open to the public. It does not affect clubs; it does not affect licensed premises in the normal sense.
Clause 1 empowers the licensing authority to fix a closing hour, which is not to be earlier than 11 p.m., if it is satisfied that it is desirable so to do—and I quote the Bill as it left your Lordships' House:
"in order to avoid disturbance to residents of the neighbourhood and to preserve reasonable enjoyment of the amenities of the neighbourhood… "
Amendment No. 1 would insert the word "unreasonable" in front of "disturbance" so that the clause would read:
"in order to avoid unreasonable disturbance to residents of the neighbourhood…."
I think that in another place it was felt that the slamming of a single car door might, technically, be held to be a disturbance. That, of course, was not what was intended, and "unreasonable disturbance" is probably a safer definition, though I dislike using the words "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in Acts of Parliament.
The second Amendment would leave out the second part of the phrase that I have quoted—namely, the words:
"and to preserve reasonable enjoyment of the amenities of the neighbourhood".
I slightly regret this, because I am always sorry if a reference to the preservation of amenities is left out of a Bill. I think,
12
however, that there was some feeling among Government supporters in another place that if these words remained in the Bill they might be used as an open invitation to some licensing authorities to close all fried fish shops punctually at 11 o'clock, on the ground that a fried fish shop, by being there at all, did not conduce to the "reasonable enjoyment of the amenities of the neighbourhood". I think I can assure your Lordships that the Bill is not seriously weakened if these words are left out. Indeed, I defended the Bill, on Second Reading and in its later stages, on the ground that it was primarily to stop disturbance and noise that I had brought it forward.
The third Amendment is a drafting one, intended simply to fix the responsibility for any infringement of a condition and to bring the wording more closely into line with the principal Act, which was passed in 1860.
Amendment No. 4, to Clause 2, is really a clarifying Amendment, which puts it beyond doubt that a magistrates' court, on hearing an appeal, would have discretion not only to alter the proposed hour of closing but also to remove that condition entirely.
Amendment No. 5 is an important one. It was suggested in another place that appeal to a magistrates' court might of itself not be sufficient, as in some cases the local magistrates might take a highly parochial view, and that it would therefore be desirable to have a further discretionary appeal to quarter sessions. This is precedented in other similar legislation, and I can see no objection to it whatever.
Finally, Amendment No. 6 inserts a new clause into the Bill. This is of a highly technical character. I understand that if this Bill becomes law the Government intend to consolidate the Refreshment House legislation, which I am sure is desirable, and I am advised that, for technical reasons, it will assist the process of consolidation if this new clause is added to the Bill. What the clause does is to get rid of old statutory requirements, some of them deriving from the 1860 Act, which have become out of date and are no longer applicable. I will gladly seek to explain the technicalities of this new clause to your Lordships, if I am able, but perhaps your Lordships will be prepared to accept it when I say that I

13
cannot conceive it possible that the acceptance of this new clause will make any difference whatever to the practical effect of the Bill upon any member of the public. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his clear exposition of the reasons why your Lordships should agree with the Commons in these Amendments. I would confirm what he said with regard to Amendment No. 6. The Government do have in mind introducing a consolidation measure. I commend your Lordships to agree with the noble Lord's Motion. Finally, I should like to congratulate him on having brought this useful Bill to a conclusion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, I should like to apologise once again to your Lordships for the fact that my association with Saudia Arabia means that unfortunately I shall not be able to remain for the end of the debate, but my noble friend Lord Kennet will be here and will be replying to the debate.
This is a difficult and complicated subject with which we are dealing this afternoon, and it is no good believing that there are necessarily simple solutions. The leasehold system—that is, the leasing of land for a long term of years for building—is peculiar to England and Wales. So far as is known, it does not obtain anywhere else. In Scotland, of course, a kind of feudal tenure still exists in which owners of land owe feu duties to a superior, but that is not quite the same thing as leasehold tenure. The essentials of the leasehold system are that the freehold owner agrees to let his land at a ground rent for a term of years,
14
usually a long term, 99 years or even longer, to a builder or developer who is required by the terms of the lease to put buildings on the land to the satisfaction of the owner. It was under this system that the eighteenth century saw the development of what are now regarded as some of the more elegant parts of our towns—the Cadogan and Grosvenor Estate, Bloomsbury and so on. The merit of the system was that the landlord could ensure control of what was built on the land and of the upkeep of the estate once it was built. He did this by means of the leasehold covenants. Before the days of Town and Country Planning Acts, the leasehold system was, in effect, the only means of securing well-planned and well-maintained urban development, and of securing that estates could be redeveloped in an orderly fashion as the buildings fell into decay.
Financially, leasehold was often regarded as a satisfactory arrangement for both landlord and lessee. The landlord invested his capital, in the form of the land, in return for a moderate rent with the knowledge that at the end of the term his capital would have appreciated, since the land would return to him with the buildings on it and he would be able to relet it or redevelop it on more valuable terms. Long leases were favoured by the landed families as a form of long-term investment with an eye to increasing the family's wealth from one generation to another. It was not a question of a quick return. The lessee, on the other hand, could carry out his development without incurring the capital cost of the land and could recoup his capital expenditure as the development went on by disposing of his houses or other buildings by means of sub-leases.
So much for the merits of the system. But there is a reverse side to the coin. The system could be abused, and was abused, by landlords who held a monopoly of the land in those places where the land had to be developed to cope with the rapid growth generated by the Industrial Revolution. This is what happened in the South Wales mining valleys, and in England, in the Midlands and the North-West. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century there was no local authority housing; working people had to provide their own, or

15
speculators provided it for them. In South Wales the only land they could get was leasehold land. They had to live near their work; they could not choose to go and live somewhere else where they could get freehold land. In many cases the houses were built by the workers themselves and inherited by succeeding generations. Now the leases are nearing their end and the present generation of occupants feel a sharpening sense of grievance that at the end of the lease the house will no longer be theirs; it will go back to the landlord without any payment by him for the building or all the improvements made by the lessee over the years. It is this feeling and this history which, particularly in Wales, have resulted in the movement for reform of the leasehold system, taking the form of a demand for leasehold enfranchisement.
The demand for reform is not new. It was voiced as long ago as 1884 in a supplementary report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, in which some members of the Commission, including Cardinal Manning, said that:
"legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of the leaseholder would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of this country".
Since 1884 there has been a series of enfranchisement Bills: there were 14 between 1884 and 1929, but only one reached the Statute Book; that is, the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920, which is amended by the present Bill.
The economics of the leasehold system when it was applied in monopoly circumstances to the provision of working class homes were strikingly shown by evidence given to the Select Committee on Town Dwellings, 1886–1887, by the Reverend T. J. Wheldon of Blaenau Ffestiniog. He said that at Ffestiniog and in the villages near, the owners of the land would sell no freeholds, and that the quarrymen and shopkeepers were therefore obliged to build cottages and shops upon leasehold land. Out of the 2,489 houses in Ffestiniog parish, working men inhabited 2,052, and had themselves built no fewer than 1,500. The total cost of these buildings was £403,810, to which might be added, as spent upon public buildings, British and board
16
schools, chapels, and schoolrooms, on leasehold land, a further sum, which would bring the total expenditure on leasehold land up to £452,810. The ground rents on the larger class of houses, costing £300, would average £2; the ground rents of the smaller, costing £130, would average £2 The total ground rent would, during the 60 years of the average lease, amount to £177,660, and would arise from about 77 acres of land which, before building took place, was not worth 7s. 6d. an acre, although the rent which each acre fetched as building land was £39. His conclusion, therefore, was that besides receiving large ground rents during the leases, the landowners would receive property worth a very substantial sum when the short leases expired, and they would also receive such property with all improvements made by lessees and tenants during the leases. Moreover, the landowners would receive those ground rents and buildings without having made any expenditure in improvements.
The fact that, at the end of the lease, a leasehold house becomes the property of the landlord casts its shadow before. Once the lease has passed its halfway mark the value of the leasehold interest begins to decline; it becomes more and more difficult to put a leasehold interest up as security for a mortgage. A man who wants to sell a leasehold house, perhaps because he may have to move to another job in some other part of the country, finds he cannot sell because a would-be purchaser cannot get a mortgage. The leaseholder in fact possesses a wasting asset. That is the other main complaint against the leasehold system. In answer it may well be said: "But leasehold is a form of contract into which people enter with their eyes open; well advised leaseholders will make proper financial provision to counteract the wasting of their asset".
This certainly is true, but it is not all the truth. There is still a kind of monopoly air about the leasehold system to-day. In the Greater London area today something like half the new housing estates are being provided on leasehold terms at considerable ground rents and at prices which are little, if anything, less than freehold prices of comparable property. That they can be disposed of so readily is, of course, a measure of the housing scarcity. It is fair to infer that

17
a lot of people buy leasehold because they cannot find anything suitable on freehold terms.
There are, then, a good many things to criticise about the leasehold system, particularly as it has been used to provide houses for working people or others of modest means. Reform has been part of the Labour Party's platform at least since the war. It was the Labour Government under the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who set up a Committee under the chairmanship, first of Lord Uthwatt, and later Lord Justice Jenkins, to examine the leasehold system and make recommendations. The majority of that Committee thought that leaseholders should have greater security at the end of their leases, but a Minority Report submitted by Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (now Mr. Justice Ungoed-Thomas) and Mr. Leslie Hale advocated giving the leaseholder the right to acquire the freehold. Before reaching any decision on the Committee's recommendations the Government of the day went out of office, and their Conservative successors passed the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which enabled leaseholders of houses of the kind to which rent control protection then extended to become statutory tenants at rack-rents at the end of their leases. This was, of course, security on terms which recognised that the house belonged to the landlord at the end of the lease; and it was a qualified security, because if the landlord could convince the court that he required the property for redevelopment, he could get the tenant out without the need to show that suitable alternative accommodation was available to him.
I should like now to explain briefly the. Government's proposals. The Government think that leasehold reform, to be effective, must go a good deal further than this. What they propose in this Bill is to give the leaseholder who occupies the house as his own home a chance to buy the freehold on fair terms, or the chance to extend his lease at a fair ground rent if he does not want to buy the freehold. The terms on which these interests can be acquired represent what in the Government's view should be the equity of the situation between the landlord and the lessee; that is, that where there is a long lease it is fair to regard the landlord's interest as the ownership of the land and that of the lessee as the ownership of the bricks and mortar of his house.
18
Accordingly, under the Bill, the qualified leaseholder will pay for enfranchisement a price which should not exceed the value of the site (that is, the land excluding the house), and for extension of his lease a modern ground rent representing the value of the land to-day, again without any element representing the value of the house on the land. How this is to be done I will try to explain briefly when I come to deal with the provisions of the Bill.
Apart from owner-occupation, the principal qualification is that the house must be within the limits to which the Rent Acts apply; that is to say, the rateable value must not exceed £400 in Greater London, or £200 outside. There has been a good deal of argument about these limits during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, but it is the Government's considered view—and it is a difficult decision—that the most reasonable means of applying the reform to the people who need it is to adopt this particular rateable limit.
Interference with contract ought to be kept to a minimum, and plainly there are some people who do not need protection in any form, and who, if there were no limits, would obtain very large windfalls out of proportion to the particular hardship of their need. Admittedly, any limits entail awkward cases of people just over the limit while their neighbours are just below; but these anomalies are outweighed by the anomalies arising from having no limit at all. The obvious limits are those already taken for rent regulation purposes, particularly as the purpose of the Bill in part at least, is to improve occupying leaseholders' security of tenure. It is thus reasonable to link the reform of long leases held on ground rents with the same rateable value limit as now applies to houses let at rack-rents—that is to say, ordinary rents—for that purpose.
The Bill does not apply to flats. There are not many flats let on long leases at low rents, and most of those that are are of recent creation. Nor do the special grievances which have led to the demand for leasehold enfranchisement arise in the sphere of flats. In any event, freehold tenure for flats is an unsatisfactory basis of tenure as the law stands at present, and any thought of enfranchising leasehold flats must await reforms which will overcome these drawbacks. Your Lordships

19
will be aware of the Wilberforce Report on Positive Covenants affecting land, and of certain recommendations of the Law Commission about covenants, and legislation is being prepared and is under review on this subject.
Apart from these basic provisions, the Bill contains a number of important clauses such as those designed to preserve the character of the best leasehold estates, even though leaseholders on them obtain their freeholds, and those to make special provision for public authorities who may have acquired reversions for the purpose of their statutory functions. I will now try to deal with them in a more detailed examination of the Bill's provisions. We shall, of course, be going through this Bill in Committee. I apologise it I have to miss out certain important aspects of the different clauses, but I will do my best to give a quick run through the Bill.
Clause 1, of course, is the most important clause in the whole Bill, as it sets out the basic change in the law of landlord and tenant. It provides for a person who lives in a house within the rateable value limits laid down, and occupies it under a long lease at a ground rent, and who has lived in the house either continuously for five years or for an aggregate of five years in a total period of ten years, to have a right to purchase the freehold of the house or have his lease extended by 50 years. The fact of a house being partly used for business purposes, or partly sub-let, does not of itself take the house outside the Bill.
Clause 2 of the Bill indicates what is meant by a "house". It gives a wide meaning to the word to include converted property—for example, a converted mews, a converted barn or oast-housea—purpose-built dwelling and shop combined, and a house which since it was built has been divided into flats. Subsection 1(a) enables a leaseholder to count as a "house" a house which has been converted into flats or maisonettes. He can enfranchise the whole of it if he holds the lease of the house and is living in one of the flats, but the under-lessee of a flat has no right to enfranchise his flat. That is not to say that this would apply to, say, a 12-storey purpose-built block of flats. Subsection 1(b) enables
20
a leaseholder living in a house formed out of some old large house by dividing it vertically to count what he lives in as a house, but he has no right over the whole building. If the owner of the house next door is the owner of a long lease he will have rights under the Bill if he qualifies by residence and rateable value.
Clause 3 defines a long lease as a lease originally granted for more than 21 years. This is a fairly standard definition which is found in other legislation. The clause also makes provision for short leases at ground rents granted by way of continuation of long leases to reckon as part of the original long lease for the purpose of the Bill. It also includes in the definition of "long lease" certain leases for less than 21 years with covenants for renewal without premium, provided that there has been at least one renewal. This provision covers certain leases in South Wales.
Clause 4 contains the definition of a ground rent, or "low rent" as the Bill calls it. This is basically the same definition as applies under the Rent Acts and Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Clause 5 contains a number of important general provisions. It provides for the leaseholder's right to enfranchise or extend his lease to be obtainable only on service of a notice in a prescribed form. It also makes a number of other detailed arrangements in connection with the serving of notices. Clause 6 deals with the case where the occupier of the house is either a beneficiary under a trust or a tenant for life under a settlement, and enables the provisions of the Bill to apply to him as if he were an ordinary leaseholder.
Clause 7 enables someone—for example, a widow who has succeeded to the leasehold interest—to reckon any period in which she occupied a house as a member of the former leaseholder's family towards her own qualifying period of occupation. But there are limitations as to how it applies to a member of a family who has a home already of his own. Clause 8 is a fairly technical clause about incumbrances. The point here is that the landlord has to clear off these charges on the house, except rent charges, which might be hard to clear off if attached to other property as well.

21
Clause 9 sets out what the qualified leaseholder has to pay on enfranchisement. It is the market value of his landlord's interest in the house, but as if his own leasehold interest had been extended by 50 years in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, if it has not already in fact been so extended. The effect of adding to the existing lease a further 50 years at a modern ground rent is to limit the landlord's reversionary interest to the value of the site only, so that the most that the leaseholder is likely to be called upon to pay in the ordinary case is site value. But the reference to the leaseholder being treated as if he had an extended lease under the Bill, whether he actually has one or not, means that the landlord may be able to get possession during the extension on payment of compensation under the provisions of Clause 17. The effect of this is that where the property has a potential value for redevelopment the landlord's reversion must be taken as the site value for redevelopment, and the price the leaseholder has to pay must reflect that higher value.
My Lords, another important provision of the clause enables a leaseholder to withdraw from the implied contract which has arisen on his serving a notice of enfranchisement, and this could particularly be of importance where, say, the Lands Tribunal ruled that considerable development value attached to the site of a house, and that the price for enfranchisement might therefore be several thousand pounds rather than several hundred pounds, which might be beyond the means of the leaseholder. Clause 10 deals with the question of the covenants to be included in the conveyance of the freehold on enfranchisement. Clause 11 is concerned with rentcharges, and in general provides for rentcharges on the freehold to remain after enfranchisement except in so far as they are greater than the ground rent being paid at the time. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with mortgages on the landlord's interest, and in general provide for these to be wiped off on the leaseholder's applying the enfranchisement price, or part of it, to redeem the mortgage or in some circumstances paying it into court.
Clause 14 is concerned with the extension of leases by a further 50 years. This extension takes the form of a new lease terminating 50 years later than
22
the existing lease which it replaces. This clause also contains provisions for the leaseholder to reimburse the landlord for his reasonable costs in granting the extended lease. Clauses 15 and 16 also deal with the extended lease. Clause 16 protects the landlord against the possibility of being called on to grant two 50-year extensions. Clause 17 gives the landlord, providing he can show that he genuinely intends to develop the property, the right to get possession of it, if a leaseholder has not enfranchised, either at the start of the 50-year extension period or at any time during it.
Clause 18, again, is another clause to protect the landlord. It enables him to defeat enfranchisement or extension so as to be able to get possession of the house for use as his own residence, or that of a member of his close family, if he can show that he acquired his interest in it before the date of publication of the White Paper. The leaseholder is entitled to compensation from the landlord equal to the value of the leasehold interest which is lost. One merit of the leasehold system is that under the management of enlightened landlords some estates of a distinctive character and very considerable amenities and a sense of community have been created. These should be preserved, but not at the expense of denying the tenants the rights of enfranchisement under the Bill.
Clause 19 provides machinery to ensure that the benefits of a well-managed estate are not lost even though individual tenants decide to buy their freeholds. Clauses 20 and 21 deal with the jurisdiction of the county court and the Lands Tribunal. Clauses 22 to 27 are all fairly technical and therefore I will not take up your Lordships' time now, beyond saying that Clause 23 is primarily aimed against attempts to contract out of the Bill. But it also deals with contracts made outside the terms of the Bill, and enables the county court to set them aside if it would be wrong for the leaseholder to be bound by them to the exclusion of his rights under the Bill.
Clauses 28 and 29 are concerned with procedure, and Clause 30 enables local authorities, new town authorities and universities to retain the development rights when a leaseholder holding from them exercises his rights to enfranchise. Again, Clauses 31 to 34 are fairly technical.

23
Clause 35 implements a Government pledge to leaseholders whose leases expired before the Bill could be introduced. Clauses 36 and 37 are concerned with transitional provisions.
Clause 40 is an important clause. It achieves two things. First, it brings back into rent control long leases granted at full rents, by turning such tenancies into regulated tenancies under the 1965 Rent Act. This was a necessary measure to protect tenants against a growing practice of some landlords seeking to evade the Rent Acts by granting leases, often at excessive rents, for 22 years or more. Statutory tenancies arising under Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, will be regulated tenancies under the 1965 Act rather than remain subject to the separate code for the determination of rent which is laid down in the 1954 Act.
Clause 41 is concerned with houses occupied by ministers of religion, and Clause 42 provides for the provisions in the main part of the Bill about the enfranchisement and extension of leaseholds to come into force on a day to be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales. I am sorry that I have made a quick run through the Bill, but many of your Lordships will be familiar with the proposals and I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I feel quite sure that every Member of your Lordships' House will fully understand if the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has to absent himself from much of the debate. He has extremely important personal responsibilities in connection with Aden where, after all, other questions of limited tenure arise, and it was good of him to find the time to explain this Bill to us. Indeed he did his best to gloss over the injustice and the immorality of an unjust and immoral Bill. Let me say at once that the responsibility lies not on him, nor on any present occupant of the Front Bench opposite; it lies squarely on the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet, each one of them.
24
One must admit one's interests. I can say at once that I have never owned any leasehold property, nor do I own any now. Nor have I ever had any interest in any company owning leaseholds, to the best of my knowledge. So I can look at this Bill without any bias; and I come to the same conclusion on it as all the professional bodies which have made an independent study of the subject, and all the responsible newspapers which have written about it. They have all written that it is a bad Bill. The Times described it as, "a curiously bad Bill".
It is not the first friendless Bill the Government have imposed upon Parliament in this Session. For instance, a few months ago we had the Land Commission Bill, which your Lordships sought to improve by a number of Amendments that the Government insisted on overriding in another place. Then we had the London Government Bill, a piece of electoral cheating, successfully designed to rob 5 million Londoners of their legal right to show their disgust with this Government, in a way that millions of other people outside Greater London did show it at the local government elections last month. Now we have this so-called Leasehold Reform Bill, a complex measure, as the noble Lord rightly said, on which I mean to-day to speak quite briefly but pungently enough, eschewing what are Committee points and highlighting its three main features.
I said that I have never owned any leasehold property. When I was a small boy I did live in a leasehold house. My father bought a house in London with between 20 and 30 years of the original 99-year lease unexpired. When I first heard that this would mean that at the end of 20 or 30 years the house would not belong to us any more it seemed to me to be terribly unjust. I believe that most of those living in leasehold houses who regard the leasehold system as unjust are in the state of ignorance about it which I was in as a small boy. Of course, as I grew older I soon realised that the fact that this house was not ours for ever was offset by the fact that my father had been able to buy it at a much cheaper price than if it had been freehold. Indeed, we should not have been able to afford to live in such a pleasant house if it had not been for the leasehold system.

25
If this Bill which is now in front of your Lordships had become law five years after my parents moved into that house, my father could have demanded the right to the freehold which he had not paid for and, thanks to a Socialist Bill, would have netted a substantial untaxed capital gain. It would have been very pleasant for him and for us, but totally undeserved, and glaringly unjust as between him and the freeholder. My Lords, this is socialism in practice. It explains why some of us have given much of our lives to fighting socialism.
The three main features of the Bill which deserve to be highlighted are, first, the right to enfranchise: second, the break-up of well-managed estates which follows from that, and therefore will undo the main welldoing of the leasehold system: thirdly, the theft of the house, which the Bill legalises, before it fixes the terms of enfranchisement. Although the Conservative policy at the last Election was in favour of enfranchisement in certain circumstances, personally I do not believe in the general right of the leaseholder to acquire the reversion compulsorily from the freeholder. In that I am in agreement with the majority of the Jenkins Committee, to which the noble Lord referred—the Committee which, after exhaustive examination, reported 17 years ago on leasehold law. I do believe that at the expiry of a lease the leaseholder, at any rate in areas of housing shortage, should have the opportunity to get security of tenure for a further period at a current market rent, unless the property is run down and near the end of its useful life and ripe for redevelopment.
I agree that there are two problems which need attention under the present law. One is that a lot of leasehold property could do with modernising, but no one will put money into modernising an old house towards the end of its lease unless the landlord will commit himself on what is to happen when the lease expires. Nor, of course, will it he easy to get improvement grants from the local authority unless the house is assured of a long enough life. The other problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, is that of the leaseholder who needs to move his home towards the end of his lease. He may need to move away to some other part
26
of the country, and if the freeholder will not agree to a surrender of it on reasonable terms, what is he to do? He may have difficulty in selling the remainder of the lease, because would-be purchasers of a short lease may not find it easy to raise a mortgage on it. Those two are genuine problems, but they certainly do not justify giving every leaseholder a right of compulsory purchase against the freeholder. These problems can be solved in other ways. Apart from those matters, I do not think that the relatively recent purchaser of a lease needs or deserves any special new legislation in his favour. He has got what he bought, the right to occupy a house for a fixed term of years and, since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the right in certain circumstances to stay on after the terminal date as the tenant at a current market rent.
The people with whom I feel much greater sympathy are the relatively small number of leaseholders whose fathers and grandfathers have been living in the same leasehold house ever since it was first built, or perhaps soon after. The house has never actually belonged to them, but, by passage of time, they have, quite understandably, come to believe that it belongs to them. People like this have generally got a small old leasehold house at a tiny ground rent. But none of the present generation in a family like that had anything to do with the original terms of purchase, which have in fact been forgotten in the family. So they have come to think of the property as completely their own, and it can be a grave shock to them when they discover that what they really own is the right to occupy the house with the land it stands on up to a definite date and no longer. Even if the freeholder offers them, after the expiry of the lease, a new tenancy at a rent maybe below what he could ask from a new tenant in the open market, the new rent is likely to be many times the tiny ground rent they have been paying, and because they did not realise that the old lease would ever come to an end they feel that they are exploited.
I remember more than once discussing this special problem with a universally respected Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Kilmuir, who was one of the most knowledgeable and wise people in this country on the subject of

27
leasehold, and he used to tell me of his anxiety to find some just step that could be taken to help these people, without embarking on a wholesale right of enfranchisement granted to all occupying leaseholders, for which he could not see there was any case at all. The noble Lord, speaking of this particular problem, I think used the words "a sharpening sense of grievance" in Wales as the leases of small houses come to an end. He omitted to point out that there is no justification for the grievance, except in those cases where a family has been living in the house for a very long time, which of course is by no means the universal rule.
To legislate, as this Bill does, for a right of enfranchisement for all occupiers of five years' standing, whether subject to a rateable value limit or not, not only gives certain lucky people a sudden right of compulsory purchase against other people—and when I say "people", of course one must remember that that includes charities—but is also bound to lead to the fragmentation of leasehold estates.
While the leasehold system, like everything else, has its disadvantages—and I entirely agree that it has—two of its great advantages are that it enables a wise landlord to insist on the maintenance of good standards on an estate and on the preservation of good neighbourhood amenities; and secondly, at the end of the period it facilitates a well-planned redevelopment scheme for the whole neighbourhood by ensuring that all the leases of the old houses run out at about the same time. If the noble Lord imagines that this well-planned redevelopment can just as easily be secured by modern town planning legislation, I can only say that he is very far astray. Clause 19, which of course we shall have to examine carefully, along with other clauses, in Committee, looks to me like a well-meaning but barely effective attempt to preserve something of the first of those assets in a few cases—the continued preservation of amenities. The second asset, the prospect of general contemporary redevelopment of a whole run-down neighbourhood, the Bill blindly smashes, except where the whole neighbourhood consists of properties above the limits of rateable value which the Government have, I think wisely,
28
restored to the Bill after a period of dither—wisely, but, of course, contrary to all the logic of the premises on which the Government have based this Bill.
The third and worst main feature of the Bill is that it legalises theft. If enfranchisement is to take place against the will of the freeholder, the compensation terms obviously ought to be arrived at by a formula based on the present-day value of the property right of which the freeholder is being compulsorily deprived. There are, we all know, various possible formulas for that. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the other professional bodies have made a detailed study of them. Through one of those formulas one could arrive at approximately just terms of compensation as between a willing buyer and an unwilling seller. I have no doubt that not only private freeholders but, most particularly, the charities which derive their income from leasehold property assumed that any Government proposals for the enfranchisement of leaseholds would base the compensation on some just formula of this kind.
The Bill makes no such attempt. It discards justice. It arbitrarily declares that the freeholder's legal right to an interest in the house is extinguished—just like that. It then reduces the value of his interest in the land by declaring that it shall not be considered as due to revert to the freeholder for another 50 years. By these means, which would land any ordinary party to a contract in gaol for fraud or embezzlement, the Bill arrives at a compensation figure which will ensure that the leaseholder, after he has paid it, and thereby been enabled to acquire the freehold, can forthwith sell his property to a third party at a good untaxed capital profit.
I know that many honourable people joined the Labour Party in the past believing that it was much more honourable than this. They thought that it genuinely sought social justice as between man and man. How wrong they were! A year ago a substantial majority of the electors of this country voted Labour because they had been persuaded that the Labour Party had better qualifications to lead the country through its difficulties than had the Conservatives. This Bill was in the Labour Party programme, and therefore I cannot ask your Lordships to

29
throw it out on Second Reading, as it should be thrown out, and something better and more just substituted for it. What we must do is to set ourselves to prise out its major injustices in Committee.
The country now is awake to the effects of the policies of this Prime Minister and of his Cabinet. The local government elections showed that dramatically. The Pollok by-election proved it, the Cambridge by-election will redouble the proof. And the Cabinet will get exactly what they have earned, for they are following up the London Government Act and its electoral cheating with this Leasehold Bill which legalises stealing. I am profoundly sorry for all the honourable members of the Labour Party who are called on by their loyalty to defend what is obviously unjust.

MIDDLE EAST: FOREIGN SECRETARY'S U.N. VISIT
3.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, on his visit to New York. Perhaps I should say before beginning this Statement that it is a long one and it will take me several minutes to read.
The Statement reads:
"During the five days that I was in the United States I addressed the Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly; I had long and valuable talks in Washington with President Johnson and in New York with Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko, with Mr. Rusk and M. Couve de Murville, and with the Foreign Ministers and other representatives of almost all the countries directly concerned in the Middle East crisis.
"The main theme of my speech to the General Assembly was to emphasise the urgent need to begin to deal at once with practical problems—the things we could do and ought to be doing now. I spoke also about some of the elements which had to be included in any final settlement. In particular I referred to the provisions of the United Nations Charter which
30
call for all countries to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any other country. I made it clear also that in our view all States in the Middle East had a right to live in genuine independence.
"Speaking on the lines of my Nottingham speech, I said that territorial aggrandisement as a result of war was contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and that other elements in a final settlement must be a long overdue solution of the refugee problem, the necessity for free and innocent passage through international waterways for the ships of all nations and the urgent requirement for an agreement on arms limitation. All this would, no doubt, require long and difficult negotiation and it is too early to see the outcome. Meanwhile there were certain practical steps which should be taken now. These included nomination by the Secretary-General of a representative, of unquestioned standing, who should go at once to the area and advise on the whole range of problems resulting from the ceasefire. In particular, he could make recommendations for strengthening the work of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and upon the form which a new United Nations military presence in the Middle East might take. There were a range of urgent problems also relating to those who had had to flee from their homes as a result of the war. Not only must they be allowed to return to their homes, but UNRWA and the voluntary organisations must be provided urgently with the means of relieving their distress.
"Apart from these problems I spoke of the urgent need to get the Suez Canal open again and I dealt very firmly with the vicious allegations about British involvement in the fighting. I ended my speech with a solemn warning that if the United Nations made no progress in solving these problems, there was a very real danger that it might go the way of the League of Nations.
"I had been the first speaker to emphasise the need to tackle urgent practical problems now and I was encouraged by the degree of support

31
that I received for this from subsequent speakers. The speech was, I think, well received in the United Nations itself and in newspaper, television and radio comment in New York. I gather that it has had a more mixed reception in this country. I must emphasise that we must at all costs avoid falling into the trap of applying a double standard. Would a similar line have been taken if the war had gone the other way—if the Arab Air Force had got in its strike first and if Arab armies had occupied significant parts of the territory of Israel? What would then have been said about the permanent retention of territorial gains made by conquest?
"As for the status of Jerusalem, may I remind the House of the attitude of successive British Governments in the past? The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 left the city divided between Israel and Jordan, and this de facto partition persisted until the recent hostilities. But a General Assembly resolution of December 9, 1949, provided that there should be a unified city under international control. Her Majesty's Government, along with most other Western Governments, have always withheld recognition of the claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem by both Jordan and Israel pending a final settlement. For this reason our Embassy in Israel, like those of most other countries, is in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem. Our Consul-General in Jerusalem is subordinate neither to the Ambassador in Tel Aviv nor to the Ambassador in Amman but directly to the Foreign Office.
"I therefore went on in my speech in New York to warn the Israel Government not to inject another complication into the situation—which is already more than sufficiently complicated—by purporting to annex the old city. This is not simply a problem of religious administration of the Holy places. It is not simply a problem of access to the Holy places. Of course we are in favour of free access by all—Jews, Christians and Moslems—to their places of worship. The problem is one of sovereignty over territory and the Israel Government would in my view be very
32
unwise indeed to attempt to prejudge the form of an eventual settlement. I am not asking for the return of a divided Jerusalem. Nor do I want to forecast what the eventual arrangements may be, except to repeat that any lasting settlement of which they form part must among other things clearly recognise the right of all States concerned to live in true dignity and real freedom.
"I spent the rest of my time discussing the Middle East crisis and bilateral problems with those who had come to New York to attend the Assembly. It would not be proper to go into details of confidential discussions, but the House may take it that I left the three Arab delegates concerned in no doubt about our attitude to their completely unjustified interruption of our oil supplies and to the closure of the Suez Canal. This is an important matter in which we must of course work with our friends who share an interest in getting the Canal reopened. I might add that this interest is not all one-sided; the United Arab Republic itself is a heavy loser as a result of the closure of this international waterway. I also had valuable talks on matters of mutual interest with representatives from areas other than the Middle East.
"As regards the future, much will depend on the outcome of the talks which took place between President Johnson and Mr. Kosygin. I would expect the debate in the United Nations Assembly to continue for at least a week and maybe longer. During this time there will be much discussion on the floor and behind the scenes of the kind of resolution which would command a majority vote in the Assembly. Her Majesty's Government are of course taking a full part in these discussions. It is too early to say what will be the outcome.
"My visit to New York enabled me to urge upon all in the United Nations the vital necessity of tackling the immediate practical problems. I was also able to make clear in my speech and in my numerous private discussions that the main interest of the United Kingdom was in a lasting settlement acceptable to all parties: equitable and justifiable."
That, my Lords, is the Statement.
4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I have no doubt that all your Lordships will at once have realised that the Statement is primarily an explanation and justification on the part of the Foreign Secretary to the critics on his own side in another place. I think we can safely leave him to them, for I do not think it would be either fair to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, or profitable to your Lordships to question him about some aspects of what the Foreign Secretary has been doing in the United Nations.
I must say that I am disappointed that the Statement does not show Her Majesty's Government taking a rather more constructive view about the two issues upon which we in this House are most concerned: that is, the closure of the Suez Canal and the problem of the refugees. The noble Lord repeated the Foreign Secretary's words that it was urgent that the Suez Canal should be opened, but we have no idea what he is doing about it. He has said nothing about any constructive proposals which he has made for achieving that end. I think your Lordships would like to hear from the Foreign Secretary something more than just a pious expression of the urgent need for opening the Suez Canal. What are Her Majesty's Government doing about it?
Secondly, we should like to hear a little more about what the Government propose to do on the refugee problem. Have the Government taken a lead in offering any money or in proposing to set up any organisation in order to cope with this terrible problem which exists in the Middle East? If your Lordships could be helped on these two matters, we might be a little further forward.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Foreign Secretary's re-interpretation of his New York speech, but is the noble Lord aware that many of us feel that it was unfortunate for the Foreign Secretary to lecture Israel about territorial aggrandisement and permanent retention of territorial gains? Surely it is unrealistic to expect a country which has to fight for its life to give up anything without a guarantee that it will be allowed to live
34
in peace in the future. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any sign that the Arab countries are willing to negotiate a reasonable settlement, or even to negotiate at all.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as Lord Carrington's comment on the Statement is concerned, he said that he could leave the Foreign Secretary to his critics, and I am equally sure that I can leave the Foreign Secretary adequately to defend himself. Therefore I will confine myself to the two questions which he put. First of all, on the question of the closure of the Canal, as noble Lords will know, the Canal is believed to be blocked physically; but in any case it seems that the attitude of the Arab Governments is—and they have said this—that the Canal will remain closed as long as Israeli forces are on the Canal. We have told the Governments of the United Arab Republic that this is an intolerable situation. We have repeated our view that under the Constantinople Convention this is an international waterway which must give free access to all shipping in times of war as well as in times of peace. As regards taking further action, we must, as my right honourable friend has said, consult all our friends who are in a similar position. We must concert our action about this matter, and before we do anything we first must find out what is the real central and final position of the U.A.R. Governments on it. We are not idle in this matter, but we must do a good deal more by way of discussion and co-ordination before we take any further action.
In regard to refugees, we are keeping very careful watch on the situation and are taking part in the various discussions which go on about the subject in the United Nations. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord and other noble Lords to be patient until later this week when we shall have a debate on the refugee problem and when I shall hope to set out in full the position of Her Majesty's Government.
As to the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, it would be quite wrong of me—and, in the truest sense of the world, impertinent—to try to place any further gloss on what the Foreign Secretary has said in his Statement. It was not a question of lecturing one country in this dispute or of taking

35
sides, but simply pointing out the principle that territorial aggrandisement should not be allowed to result in permanent gain—in a case of this sort, that territorial aggrandisement should not result from military operations—and to hope that the final solution would be just and equitable for all concerned.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, my noble friend did not answer the latter part of the question put by the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. Could he give us any indication as to the prospects of peace negotiations between Israel, on the one hand, and the Arab States, on the other? What we have today is a situation of cease-fire, which I should have thought justified the Government of Israel in standing in their present positions until they enter into negotiations. What territorial or boundary readjustments will follow or be the outcome of peace negotiations is another matter. What we have today are speeches at the General Assembly under Article 11, but the real issue depends upon whether there can be peace negotiations leading to a final settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and he is right in saying that the essence of all this is whether we can get some real, effective, final peace negotiations under way. But I am afraid that I cannot foresee what is likely to happen in the United Nations, which is the forum in which these discussions are being carried out and, in my view, the right forum.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I noticed that the Foreign Secretary used the phrase, "If, for example, the Arabs had struck first …" May I ask the noble Lord what proof exists that they did not?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not think that the Foreign Secretary was making any value judgments or moral judgments in this case. We know from the now well-documented accounts of the war that the Israeli air force struck at the Arab air force and virtually destroyed it. What he was asking was what would have happened if the reverse had been the case.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us
36
greatly appreciate the report which has now been given of what the Foreign Secretary said in the United Nations? Is it not clear that he was the first speaker at the Assembly to put forward a series of constructive proposals dealing with immediate problems and that that was recognised in the subsequent discussions? And is my noble friend also aware that whilst that speech was reported in our Press on two particular controversial points which led to some criticism, many of us strongly endorse the view which he expressed that military action should not determine the peace which, if it is to be enduring, must express principle, and also that Jerusalem, which is so important to the world, should become an international city?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I believe it is true that the Foreign Secretary was among the first in the United Nations to put forward proposals for practical steps to solve the immediate problems, and I believe that this action was widely appreciated. I certainly agree—and I believe Her Majesty's Government, and indeed the Opposition also would agree—with the proposition that military action should not be allowed to be the determining factor in a crisis of this sort.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on the point as to who started the war, is it not a fact that before the Israeli strike took place President Nasser informed the world that the United Arab Republic intended to exterminate the Jews?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I believe that statements of that sort have been made from time to time in the past, but I think it would be unprofitable now, and indeed rather dangerous, and also, if I may use the word, counter-productive, to go into arguments about who started the war. What we must now do is to see that it remains ended and that a peaceful and just solution is brought about.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not equally counter-productive to prejudge the Israeli action before any negotiations have taken place?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course it is counter-productive (I am

37
sorry now that I used that word) to prejudge anything in the present situation. If I gave any indication that Her Majesty's Government are doing so, I certainly had no intention of giving that impression. We shall prejudge no issues, but will do all we can to help all the other countries concerned to seek a permanent solution.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
4.10 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, as one who sat for a South Wales constituency when I was a Member of another place, I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence if I intervene shortly in this debate on this highly complicated and controversial measure. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I have known him now for, I think, 47 years, since we first met at Balliol. Ever since then I have had an affection and admiration for him, and I greatly enjoyed him—as I am sure the whole House did—in his present mood. But I feel he will accept from me that adjectives and invective are not really a substitute for argument when one is considering a measure of this far-reaching social import.
The noble Lord used words like fraud, embezzlement, theft, immorality, and a great many other expressions of that type. I have heard them before in this context. I frequently heard them used by my own constituents in describing the present leasehold system, and I feel that they will go on thinking that the present leasehold system is immoral and involves the legalisation of theft and fraud, unless some change such as is proposed in the present measure is in fact placed upon the Statute Book.
His criticism centres, I think, if one takes the substance of it, upon the provisions as to compensation in the event of a lessee requiring the lessor—the freeholder—to convey the freehold to him. In the observations that I want to make to your Lordships I should like to centre upon the formula for compensation which has been adopted by the Government. Of course, this is a complicated, far-reaching measure and, as the noble Lord pointed out, many of its aspects will require
38
further consideration in Committee. But basic and central to its whole structure is, I suppose, the provision for compensation.
May I make one or two general observations? It is not immoral to alter the incidence of contractual relationships under existing law. It has been done over and over again when Parliament thinks that a contract does not work fairly as between the two parties to it. A notable and striking example, after all, is the whole pattern of the Rent Restrictions Acts dating back to 1915; there is the Moneylenders Act 1927; there is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956. They all have the effect of altering contracts made between citizens, and, of necessity, have the result of conferring upon one party to the contract a benefit which, had the law not intervened, he would not have enjoyed and which would have worked to the advantage of the other party. That is what this measure does.
Perhaps the most striking example of interference in contractual relationships in this particular field is the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, for which I think I am right in saying the noble Lord had a very considerable responsibility. I am sorry: I gather that I am mistaken, and I withdraw that. His experience is so wide-ranging that I attributed that measure also to him, but I am mistaken and I withdraw that remark. Nevertheless, the noble Lord supported it. He thought that it was a useful measure, and he commended it in his speech to your Lordships this afternoon. But what does it do? It takes away from the lessor the right, which had that Act not been passed he would have enjoyed, of having back vacant possession at the termination of the lease which has been carved out of his interest. It takes away that right from him and in place of that right it confers upon tenants, in circumstances described by that Act, the right to security of tenure at an economic rent.
The Minister of State, speaking in another place about the Bill we are now considering, pointed out the money result of that measure. He took two instances, one of a freehold valued at £1,500 which in consequence of the passing of that Act was worth no more than £550; and another of a freehold which would have been worth £4,000 and the value of which,

39
in consequence of the passing of that Act, was halved. The noble Lord did not use of that measure, passed by a Conservative Government, the invective which he thought it proper to use of the measure now before your Lordships' House. But that measure deserves that condemnation just as much as the present measure does, if condemnation is appropriate in the case of either. I would criticise that measure as having gone not nearly far enough.
The difficulty about finding a formula arises from the fact that lessees fall into such widely different classes. The noble Lord referred to the lease of a house which his father had purchased when he was very young, and to the feeling of indignation which he experienced as to its incidence. Clearly, somebody who buys a leasehold interest of 21 years in, say, a fairly expensive residential area in London, within the rateable limit of £400 provided in this Bill, knows perfectly well in 99 cases out of 100 that he is acquiring a wasting asset, and is acquiring it at a price less than he would have to pay if he wished to buy the freehold. That kind of lessee may be said to have a windfall as a result of the provisions of this Bill which applies to him.
But, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, he very much underestimates what he regards as the importance of the few cases, as I think he called them, of the South Wales lessee under a long building lease of 99 years granted in the latter part of the last century. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill to your Lordships this afternoon pointed to the importance of that problem, and it is because I, as a former Member of another place for a South Wales constituency, so constantly came directly in touch with that sort of problem, that I have ventured to rise to address your Lordships this afternoon. As the Industrial Revolution wore on, and as great shifts of the working population, particularly to South Wales, but not, by any means, exclusively to South Wales, took place in the latter part of the last century, building leases in very large numbers, often of 99 years, were granted by freeholders. Sometimes—indeed, generally—their terms provided that the lessee should construct upon the land the house or premises for which it was let; sometimes the lessor himself undertook that
40
expense. I personally regard that historical incident as of much less relevance in this context than the present result.
What is the present result, which Members of this House who have sat for constituencies in the areas affected will know so well? It is this. Over and over again one finds a family living in a small working-class dwelling, built on land the subject of a building lease now or soon about to run out. The occupants of the house have lived in it all their lives. The present occupant, I dare say, was born in it; so was his father, and so were his forbears. His family have lived in that house for 50, 60, 70 or 80 years, and it is the security which he hopes to pass on to his widow. His children were born in it; and he and his forbears have paid for that house, during the whole of that period, a ground rent of, perhaps, £1. He is not a lawyer: he is, as Shakespeare described Mark Anthony:
"… a plain, blunt man.
That love my friend."
For him, it is really rather a legal quibble that the house, for which for years £1 per year has been paid, does not really belong to him. In substance he thinks it does. He regards it as his home; he has known no other home; and he thinks it outrageous that a property company, or a freeholder, the name of whom he does not know and whom he has never met, has the right, when that lease falls in, perhaps in a few years from now, to come to him and say: "You will either pay me the value of this freehold or you will pay me, instead of £1 a year, an economic rent, which may be 30s. a week, £2 a week, £2 10s. a week, or you will get out". It is on the occasions when that sort of suggestion is made that a man in that position uses precisely the same adjectives as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, used this afternoon in your Lordships' House in criticising the present measure.
One has to look at these measures from various points of view. I am not suggesting for a moment, as I hope I made clear to your Lordships a little earlier, that all lessees are in that position. Of course they are not. A great many will derive considerable advantage from this Bill which perhaps it may be said they have no strong moral right to look forward to. But I think the noble Lord

41
greatly underestimates the feeling, the extent of the feeling and the strength of the feeling in the parts of the country in which these features are discernible, in which this type of lease is about to fall in, if he brushes the whole thing aside in the scathing and contemptuous terms which he used in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I put it to your Lordships and to the noble Lord himself that he is treating this matter on a rather unrealistic basis. The substance of the matter, the situation which has engendered the strong movement of public opinion—and, I put it to him, public opinion as a whole, not now but for nearly 100 years back—in favour of giving a right to leaseholders to enfranchisement of the freehold, derives from the sort of situation which I have been venturing to describe. Anything less than the provisions of this measure will go far short of meeting the social evil—because it is a social evil if people in those circumstances are likely to be turned out into the street—which I have ventured to describe. It is for that reason, and for no innate wickedness, that the present Government have thought it right to introduce this measure, to which the Labour Party, ever since 1951, have been openly committed.
My Lords, is it confiscatory? One has to look at two situations. From the time that this Bill becomes law (if it becomes law, as I hope it will) a freeholder who carves out of his interest a leasehold term of over 21 years will know precisely the risk that he is running, and he will wish to be paid for it accordingly. Over a period of time prices will no doubt adjust themselves to take account of the new incident which is annexed to a transaction of that sort—that is, the risk that, at the end of the period which he carves out of his own freehold interest, there may be an occupant in the house who has lived in it for not less than five years, and who will in consequence have the right to call for the freehold at the compensation figure provided in this Bill or to ask that his leasehold may be enlarged for 50 years at a modernised ground rent. So if one looks to the future, all one is doing is changing the nature of the transaction centring on the grant of an interest in land for over 21 years.
If one looks at the present, it can be said, "Yes, but it is unfair to lessors who
42
have already granted their leases, and who are therefore caught by the provisions of this Bill". Many of them for years past must have known that something like this was likely to find its way to the Statute Book. Ever since 1951, and for decades before that—right back to 1884—the question of leasehold enfranchisement on some terms has been the subject of political controversy. There have been strong voices which have spoken in favour of it, and attempt after attempt has been made to put on the Statute Book some measure which would bring in leasehold enfranchisement. So any freeholder who for years back granted a leasehold interest in excess of 21 years must have known that there was some risk of this sort of thing. But what of those who did not? I would simply say that the great problem has been to find a suitable formula. Any formula other than that or less generous to the lessee than that which I have described would fall far short of meeting the situation which one meets in South Wales, in Liverpool, in London and in other cities, arising out of the falling in of these long-term building leases.
I hope the noble Lord will further reconsider this matter in the light of what I have ventured to put, with great respect, before the House and before him. He really went a little bit too far, I think. He said very candidly that he did not agree with the other members of his Party. They, after all, I think I am right in saying, did not vote against the Government White Paper published in 1965, which set out perfectly clearly the basis on which the present Government proposed to introduce this legislation. I speak subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that. I think it is generally accepted that the long lessee at a low rent, a ground rent or a rent, as defined in the Bill, of less than two-thirds of the rateable value, ought to have the right either to a prolongation of his lease—and, after all, the 1954 Act went some distance along that path—or otherwise to the conveyance to him of the freehold of the house in which he lives.
I venture to submit to your Lordships' House that this is a necessary measure to meet a real and crying social evil. It is neither immoral, nor is it confiscatory; nor does it involve the legalisation of theft. I would not go the whole way towards agreeing with some people who

43
say that the existing system involves the legalisation of theft, but there are a great many people who have said that and who sincerely think it. I hope your Lordships will give this measure a Second Reading.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, rightly said that this Bill covers a variety of circumstances and a variety of interests. I propose to confine my remarks to two different forms of property ownership. One is house property owned by charities and the other is house property owned by housing associations. I happen to be a trustee of a very ancient charity which for many hundreds of years has been developing and redeveloping its property in South Kensington.
A great deal of redevelopment took place as a result of destruction during the war, and we now have a very fine property. Among our tenants we can enumerate several Members of your Lordships' House, which I think guarantees its respectability. It has a considerable rent roll, every penny of which, except what is required for maintenance and administration, goes to charity—to such charities as medical research, old people's homes, young people's clubs and so forth, which I think are generally considered to be very deserving objects. I have never heard a word expressed against the system under which we administer this property. Perhaps one or two people have felt that their rents have been put up too much; but, apart from that, I think it is generally regarded as a very well administered estate.
When this Bill first appeared we thought that we had escaped it, because most of our properties were above the limit. Then we found we had not. That disturbed us a good deal, because we could see our scheme of management being interfered with and our assets diminished. Then we found that a new clause had been put in which gave us some hope of keeping our properties under collective management. A little later on, we found that we had been excluded again. And there it is. I suppose we have been lucky; others have not been so lucky.
I am citing this case only to show two points: first, the almost haphazard way in which we have been at one moment
44
excluded, at another included with reservations, and then excluded again—and I suppose that is the result of our having been tagged on to all classes of property-owners such as the ones that the noble Lord cited in South Wales, with whom I do not think we have much connection—and, second, to point to the extraordinary fact that here we are empowering people who are tenants, tenants almost by chance, to acquire charitable assets and, having acquired them, to sell them forthwith at a personal profit which they can put in their pockets. If any noble Lord from this side of the House had made such a proposal and held it to be deserving of the support of this House, I think he and we on these Benches should have been considered to have taken leave of our senses. After the experience I have had in trying to get charitable trusts altered and after discovering the jealous care with which the law looks after the interests of charities, it seems to me extraordinary that we should allow their assets to be used in this way.
Much the same considerations can apply to housing associations. As your Lordships know, these associations, many of which have charitable status, exist only to promote the interests of their tenants. There is no question of a profit being made out of the tenants; they are all covered by the law. In the same way as charitable trusts are supervised by the Charity Commission, these housing associations are supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. This is all admitted in the White Paper, which says:
"Housing associations normally let houses on short leases, so they will seldom have leaseholders qualified under the Bill. But in any case, since housing associations exist only for the benefit of their tenants, it would not be appropriate to give rights against them under this scheme."
Those rights have been given in certain cases. Since an invitation was made in the other place, the National Federation of Housing Associations is at present collating evidence on this point; but as they have over 1,500 societies attached to them, it may take a little time.
At the moment I will cite two cases. One concerns a very old-established association of the highest repute at Bournville near Birmingham, where the chairman himself told me that, under the Bill

45
as it is, the whole system of administration under which that trust has been governed for some sixty years will be undermined. The other is a new scheme which is intended to operate near Oxford. It is a large and imaginative scheme, the architect of which happens to be a Member of your Lordships' Horse. It has received general support from the Oxford Corporation and, I think, from the Minister. Now I am told that by reason of this Bill—that is to say, unless some change is made in the Bill—the whole scheme is in jeopardy.
Why should this scheme be put in jeopardy? Why should the old-established scheme to which I first referred have its administration undermined? What is the case for it? Is there any evidence whatsoever to justify it? I was President of the Federation of Housing Associations for some twenty years. I never heard any complaints of that nature. In any large organisation you have a certain number of general complaints; but I have never heard it suggested that we should enable tenants to acquire our properties and sell them at a profit.
My Lords, this is not a Party matter. I know that many noble Lords opposite are just as enthusiastic about charities and about housing associations as is anybody on this side of the House. Indeed, in reference to housing associations, a month or two ago we had a visit from the Minister who addressed our annual general meeting and who gave us a very encouraging talk. I cannot believe that he really intends to prejudice these associations to the degree which is apparently taking place. I hope that this House will live up to its duty of being a revising Chamber, because I do not think that any Bill for a long time has seemed to be more in need of revision than this one.
4.37 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is a Second Reading debate. I think that the two points raised by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat were really Committee points, but it might save him a little trouble if I remind him that on Report in another place the Government answer about the housing associations was that there was
"no doctrinal difference between the two sides of the House on this matter.… There is no provision in the Bill for them for the simple
46
reason that we have not been able to find any associations which have long leases at low rents which would bring them within the terms of the Bill; and we have made fairly extensive inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/6/67, col. 1451.]
I listened to hear whether the noble Viscount was going to give us such instances; but he did not.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I gave two. I think it quite inappropriate to give a large number of long quotations on Second Reading; but I have more.
LORD MITCHISON: That is what is required. If I may, I will continue the quotation:
"I cannot commit my right honourable friend to say that we shall introduce a new clause in another place, because if it is not absolutely necessary there is no point in making the Bill longer."—[col. 1452.]
There is no difference in principle at all. I think if the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has any instances of the type that were lacking below, and gives them, he may find his way easier than he supposes.
Charities, I think, raise broader issues. This is a Second Reading debate; and the Bill when introduced below was not opposed absolutely on Second Reading. It was opposed on a reasoned Amendment, and the reasoned Amendment accepted that ground leaseholders should be permitted to buy or rent their houses on fair terms except where the property is to be redeveloped. The Opposition would have to refuse the Bill a Second Reading because they regarded the terms as confiscatory. Therefore as I see it, as between the two Parties, at any rate—I am not referring to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for he has been fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill on this occasion as on a previous one in 1954—we appear to be agreed that ground leaseholders should be permitted to buy or rent their houses on fair terms except where the property is to be redeveloped. If any noble Lord opposite says anything else, then he is differing from his own Party on this matter.
Why are we agreed on this? Without doubt because there is grave abuse here. I turn from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the same individual when much younger. I think "young Brooke", as he then was, was perfectly right. He saw the injustice of being turned out of what he regarded as his home. My Lords,

47
you always get the same point in these debates about housing. One view of a house is that it is a person's home. Some houses can hardly be regarded as that—a very short occupation would hardly make them that—and five years has been taken as a fair time to allow for a house to become a home.
On the other side of the picture, you get questions of investment and expenditure and so on—broadly speaking, questions of property and questions of money; and here the outlook is very different. It is that kind of thing which, in the middle of what I call the grandfathers' war, led to the introduction of rent control and, more important, to its continuation between the wars until the last Act we had a year or two ago. The reason for those Acts was that it was felt to be unjust and inequitable (I use no stronger words) to turn people out of their houses because, for one reason or another, they could not pay some higher rent which the landlord might be demanding. And those measures were extended. They were varied from time to time, but recently they have been confined to cases of not very large houses because it was found that legislation suitable for the average house, if I may so put it, could not always work in the case of a very expensive house.
My Lords, exactly the same thing has happened here, and I think the Government were quite right to go back to what they originally proposed and to confine the legislation they are now considering to average houses. Once you get above the rateable value of £400 in London and £200 in the Provinces, which are the figures in the Rent Acts, you begin to deal, for broadly similar reasons, with different classes of houses, and you get different questions arising. I therefore feel that this should be regarded as legislation which goes hand in hand, as it were, with the provisions for leased houses in the recent Rent Act, and also previous legislation.
It is all very well to talk about being confiscatory and breaking contracts and the rest of it. But rent control, town planning, the Statutes to which my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill referred, and another one which a short time ago increased the responsibilities of landlords in the matter of repairs—all
48
these things are, in a sense, interference with contracts; and interference with contracts, as I see it, for two reasons. First of all, as in the cases we are now considering, often one party to the contract, or his predecessor in title, had such an advantage that he was able to make an inequitable contract. The second reason is that circumstances have changed and a contract which may have been fair enough at one time has become socially unfair in its operation. It seems to me that when either of these two things has happened, it is the business and the duty of Parliament to interfere.
There is no doubt that the building leases of 99 years in South Wales, and in other parts of the country, including notably London itself, were imposed by landlords for two reasons. They wanted to keep the land in their own hands ultimately, and they knew perfectly well at the time that it was no use expecting the man who wanted the house to buy it in any form. He had not the means. All he could afford was the building lease, putting up the building and the rest of it, and leaving the land in that condition.
But that land, my Lords, has increased enormously in value in a great many parts of the country, and the cost of building nowadays is far heavier than it was 99 years ago—we all know that. The result has been that the whole character of the contract, as I see it, has changed, and that which was imposed originally by force of circumstances and by economic superiority, which enabled the landlord of the day to dictate those terms, has now become a bargain which, unsatisfactory or not at the beginning, is certainly completely unsatisfactory now from every social point of view. It is, therefore, in order that people should be entitled to keep their homes that this Bill has been introduced. There is no dispute about that, as I see it.
Then it is said that the terms are confiscatory. I shall not, in what I hope will be a very few words, go into the extremely complicated and difficult questions raised by this kind of point. Our leasehold system is such that it varies from bargains where there is an unfair economic advantage which has proved to be unfair socially, to bargains about which no criticism of that sort could reasonably be made. Leases are not all black or all

49
white. The vast majority of them are grey; and somewhere or other you have to draw the line.
Drawing a line here has been partly in the value of the house, which I mentioned, partly in the need for five years occupation, which I also mentioned, and partly in the character of the lease itself. These are, whatever phrase you like to use, definitely long leases. It is not the whole leasehold system that is under criticism here, it is the long leasehold system, which is not by any means the same thing; and the best point which can be made for the long leasehold system is on the question of development. I entirely agree with the Benches opposite, though perhaps in a different spirit, that Clause 19 is extremely important. This clause concerns well-managed estates. I have looked carefully at the debates, and I think the clause does what is required, but I am sure we ought to consider that very carefully. What is required is to continue the unity of management and development which has been made possible in this way.
The provisions about redevelopment are similar, but in this connection I think less important. Therefore, for the very simple reasons—some of which are not denied by the Party opposite—that there ought to be a right in ground leaseholders, as the phrase goes (it is their phrase) to buy or rent their houses on fair terms, and because I find nothing unfair in the terms put into this Bill, though I agree that it is a matter for detailed and difficult discussion, and even though I agree, too, that it comes down to drawing the line at many points and that those who fall on one side or the other of the line may feel that they have been unfairly treated by that mere fact, I hope that your Lordships will do what should be done and give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
May I add this? It is recognised, and has been recognised for years, that this abuse exists. It has been shown, and quite clearly, that the Party opposite recognise that ground leaseholders should be permitted to buy or rent on fair terms. But I call the attention of your Lordships' to the fact that the Party opposite never brought in any measure that effectively gave ground leaseholders this right. The 1954 Bill was a lamentable
50
failure, because under it those who wished to exercise their rights found often that they could not afford to pay; and they found, too, that they got not real security of tenure. Unless, therefore, an alternative is suggested in all these cases, I feel bound to say that this seems to me the best that can be done and that it gives effect to an undoubted right in what are necessarily very complicated conditions.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I do not comment on the desirability or undesirability of land enfranchisement, but I do comment on the deplorable compensation that may be payable to the landlord. In all matters relating to landlord and tenant, one must be fair to the tenant. At the same time, one should be fair to the landlord. So far as I know—and I am always prepared to be corrected—it is not a crime to be a landlord.
Let me get to the point. I have examples here drawn up by an expert in these matters, one who is not actuated by Party politics at all. I will not go into the mathematics of the problem, because unless you have a First at Oxford or Cambridge you are not likely to understand it. What I will do is this. I will give your Lordships two examples, and if the Government wish me to give them copies of the mathematical sums, I will do so with pleasure. I take first the example of a suburban two-storey house with a first floor of two bedrooms, bathroom and usual offices, and on the ground floor two rooms and a kitchen. The freehold, with full vacant possession, would sell at about £4,800. The site is a relatively small one, with a frontage of about 18 ft. It is assumed—and this is important—that the freehold is subject to a lease of 40 years unexpired. The ground rent is £6 per annum. The value of the freehold interest before the introduction of this Bill has been properly estimated at £600. Under the Bill there follows a mathematical sum, with the result that the estimated freehold value under the Bill is £90. That means that the tenant, instead of having to pay £600 for the freehold, will have to pay only £90. If your Lordships think that that is fair to the landlord, I can only say that in my view it is scandalously unfair.
Let me give your Lordships another example. Here we have the same

51
premises, but there are only two years of the lease to run. The estimated freehold value before the Bill is £2,815. There follows another classic mathematical sum, which I am sure your Lordships will not understand, with the result that the value of the freehold interest under the Bill is £670; that is to say, the tenant will get the freehold for £670 instead of £2,815. If your Lordships think that that is fair to the landlord, my view is that it is scandalously unfair.
There are two other matters relating to compensation which I should like to mention. These are not cases where the tenant has to pay compensation, but cases where the landlord has to pay compensation. If the landlord successfully proves to the court that he requires possession of the property for the purposes of redevelopment, then he is entitled to possession, but he must pay compensation to the tenant for what is described in the Bill as "the loss of house and premises". The amount of compensation which the landlord must pay the tenant is the value that the lease might realise in the open market if sold with vacant possession.
It may be more accurate if I refer here to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, which states in terms:
"The amount payable to a tenant … shall be the amount which … the house and premises, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might … be expected to realise, on the assumption that the vendor was selling the tenancy …

(a) subject to the rights of any person who will on the termination of the tenancy be entitled to retain possession as against the landlord, but otherwise with vacant possession; … but there shall be left out of account any value attaching to the right to acquire the freehold under …"

this Bill. I want to know why the landlord should have to pay compensation in such a case. He cannot be accused of taking property which belongs to himself. He does not want to disturb the community by redevelopment. Probably all that he wants to do is to convert a dwelling house into two or more flats and thereby create more accommodation for the community. It is a holy mystery to me why the landlord should have to pay compensation.
An even more startling liability by the landlord to pay compensation occurs in connection with the landlord's desire to use the house for himself and his family.
52
The landlord may resist enfranchisement, or extension of the lease, if he satisfies the court that he reasonably requires the property for occupation by himself or his family. The actual wording of the Bill is
"… he may resume possession of the property on the ground that it or part of it is or will be reasonably required by him for occupation as the only or main residence of the landlord or of a person who is at the time of the application an adult member of the landlord's family."
But here again the landlord must pay compensation to the tenant on the basis which I have already mentioned. Why should the landlord be obliged to pay compensation to the tenant in such a case? The landlord is not resisting the tenant for the reason that he (the landlord) proposes to sell the property to someone else at a large profit. All that he wants is to have a roof over his head and the heads of his family, and to use his own property for that purpose. What has he done wrong? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who always smiles so happily, will tell me.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, as I am asked the question, may I say that it seems to me not unreasonable to pay compensation for turning a tenant out of his home.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, the landlord is not turning a tenant out of his home. The landlord is giving up his own home. There has been a contract between the parties, which I assume has come to an end, or is about to come to an end, and therefore the landlord is turning himself out of his own home. At all events, it is a complete mystery to me why the landlord should have to pay compensation.
So much for criticism. For the purpose of clarifying my mind on the meaning of this legislation, I should like now to ask a few questions. Where a tenancy is extended for a period of 50 years the rent payable remains the same until the contractual expiry date of the current tenancy. Thereafter the rent is to be:
"a ground rent in the sense that it shall represent the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) …"
Now 99 years ago the ground rent may have been £3. What is it to-day—£30? At all events, I want to know who decides

53
the amount of ground rent that is chargeable during the extended tenancy after the expiration of the current tenancy. Likewise, at the end of 25 years who determines what the revised ground rent, if any, is to be?
The other question relates to mortgages. The matter is dealt with in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill. Let me take a simple example of what may occur. Say that the valuation of the freehold is £3,000. The building society grant a loan of 80 per cent. of the valuation—namely, £2,400. Later, the owner grants a lease for more than 21 years to a tenant. In course of time, the tenant gives notice to enfranchise and the compensation he has to pay to the landlord is, say, £300. Let us suppose, for the purposes of the argument, that £800 is still owing on the mortgage. The deeds are with the building society. The owner has been obliged to part with the freehold to the tenant. Who pays the balance of the loan outstanding to the building society—namely, £500? And who gets the deeds of the property? Noble Lords may have an answer to that question. But at the present time I must say that the matter is not abundantly clear to my simple mind.
I will not speak any longer, but let me revert for a moment to the cases where the tenants have been able to obtain the freehold of properties, one for £90 and the other for £600. The day after obtaining that freehold they can sell these properties on the open market for £3,000 or £4,000. Do your Lordships call that a good policy? Perhaps you do.
5.0 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I must declare a personal interest, first in respect of my house, which is on the noble Viscount's estate, as we have heard, and secondly, because of my official interest as First Church Estates Commissioner. A duty which is imposed upon that office is to manage all the properties of the Church Commissioners; clearly this Bill affects those properties, and therefore I properly declare an interest. I am a little embarrassed, as well, because among my colleagues in the Church Commissioners are five members of the Cabinet, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, and I do not find myself in agreement with any of them.
54
This, I am bound to say in categoric language, is a bad Bill. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that it is nothing like as bad as it was a few weeks ago, and it is getting better every day; and I still have hope that, in some parts, it may be improved still further. I should like to convey, on behalf not only of the Church Commissioners but of eighteen landed estates for which I was the chairman in seeing the Minister on this Bill, our thanks for what has been done so far. I had hoped that I should not be involved in politics, because I took the view until this afternoon that the Opposition were on this Bill as bad as the Government. But I am very satisfied with the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, and I hope that it is followed by his colleagues as well. If so, then I am in politics. The acceptance of the principle of enfranchisement, the suggestion that local authority estates should be fragmented, is not, in my view, sound policy.
I have six points to put about this Bill, and I find myself very much in sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who I hope will not leave for a moment, because he does not often hear that from me. Enfranchisement is based on a false premise that land belongs to the landlord and bricks belong to the tenant. That is the fundamental point of this Bill which is wrong.
I will give only two examples to show that. If I may, I will take my own house. In 1946, I took a lease of that house from the charity about which we have heard. I paid no premium, and I paid what was called a rackrent. It is true that I bought a bit of the lease, but I paid for only fixtures and fittings. The lease came to an end and was renewed. Again I paid no premium whatever and I was until last week entitled to buy that property from Smith's Charities—if I may say the name now—at, I believe, £4,000, when the lease was worth £16,000. That is what is going on under this Bill. That has been changed in the last week, and unfortunately for me, the rateable value of my house is above £400; so I have no personal interest.
The second point is that everybody seems to assume that the current way of developing property is by building leases. It is all old-fashioned. It used to be.

55
You used to take a bit of grassland, the lessee was given a building lease, and he put in the capital and built the houses. It is still done a little. It is hardly done, however, for redevelopment—a phrase which has been mentioned only twice in the whole debate and which is the key to the whole of this Bill. What happens now is that the landlord puts up the money. I have been lucky enough to be engaged in the redevelopment, first, of the Nash Terraces, then of Carlton House Terrace, then of the Church's Paddington Estate, and finally, in Islington. I am a director of the oldest company, the New River Company. In all those cases redevelopment is being done by the landlord putting up the capital. So, whatever may be the trouble stemming from the last century and leaving behind this unfortunate feeling, with which I have great sympathy, the future of redevelopment has to be faced on the basis that it is the landlord who puts up the capital. He may get back some of the capital by premium, but most of it is landlord invested. So there are two fundamental misconceptions about redevelopment in saying that the bricks and mortar belong to the tenant.
The second trouble is that enfranchisement has been fixed on the basis of a yardstick of rateable value. True, the figure has been picked from the Rent Act and, therefore, has some small reason for it. But take Greater London; if you own a small house of five or six rooms, as I do, in South Kensington, you will find it is above the £400 rateable value. If an identical house was in Dulwich, it would not be above that figure. So we shall be exempt from enfranchisement in the City of Westminster, but we shall have full enfranchisement of precisely the same type of house in another part of Greater London. I have written to the Minister about this matter, and I am sure he will try to help. We must have some flexibility of these figures so that the same class of tenants and the same class of houses are treated the same.
Again, from the 18 estates outside London with which I have been working on this Bill, it is obviously a completely different picture. Take Birmingham—two very well-known and respectable estates—South Devonshire, East-
56
bourne and Folkestone. Their problem is not the same. You cannot have one figure for all; there must be some flexibility. As I have said, I have written to the Minister—I will not weary your Lordships with the detail—submitting a scheme whereby this can be done.
The third point is that compensation is not based on market value but on (I am bound to use the word) confiscation terms, as has been said by one noble Lord; yet the landlord who has to buy that same property back next year to get redevelopment going has to pay the whole market value. That seems to be quite iniquitous. Redevelopment, I have said, is probably the most pressing thing and the strongest case for private landed estates. Urban estates require redeveloping. I have now been fortunate enough to be concerned with this activity for the last twenty years, and it goes very well. No powers are required. In the case of the latest one, which we have not yet finished, North of Marble Arch, 200 families have been rehoused without a single law case, without any compulsory powers or anything of that sort. All this can be done under good management.
This is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that Clause 19 is a most important part of this Bill; and if the Bill is to work it must be improved. But redevelopment seems to have got into a tremendous muddle in the Bill as it is drafted at the moment. In Clause 39 there is a provision whereby the ordinary power of getting possession on redevelopment given by the Landlord and Tenant Act, is removed. Why, I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord when he replies will be able to give some reason why it has been taken away.
Clause 17 is a perfectly good clause, saying that if you want to redevelop and a longer lease has been taken you can get back your property. True you have to pay more than you were paid for it, but you get it back. But when you come to the all-important Clause 19 you see there is nothing in the clause except the word "redevelopment", which occurs once, which would enable any enfranchised house to be got back for redevelopment once it is sold. I cannot see any way. I have been told—and I ask for this to be denied if it is not correct—that the Land Commission will not buy such houses. I have been told—and I know this

57
for myself—that local authorities will not be interested in spending their money on them. There is no power in the landlord to get such a house back, and I cannot see how the scheme in Clause 19 is going to get back for redevelopment properties which have been enfranchised. It may be said that it would be possible for the scheme to go to the High Court. But the High Court do not make schemes giving compulsory powers; it is not a thing they like. Nor are they at all suitable for this purpose. I suggest that this Bill cannot work unless another fresh look is given to the whole question of redevelopment.
Finally, I turn to the procedure under Clause 19. First of all, one has to go to the Minister and ask for a certificate—I do not think there is any objection to that—but the Minister has to hold a local inquiry it there is any objection. It will take months and years; local inquiries are very expensive, and the present Minister has not the proper staff for them. Then, having done all that, one has to go to the High Court and get a scheme. The Chancery Division at the moment takes two years to get a case on. I have just had one. What on earth are we going to do with development under Clause 19 if we have to go through all this procedure?
I suggest that the Government have now accepted the principle that there are well-managed estates that ought to be preserved. That is accepted in principle. If so, why hold a public inquiry? What is the need of it? We have the Lands Tribunal, which I suggest is a very good tribunal, set up for the very purpose of dealing with matters of this kind. I beg and pray, if this Bill is to go through, which I personally should hate, that there shall be a much quicker and cheaper procedure for getting these matters resolved in some way or other. Those, I am afraid, in one sense are clause points; but this Bill is a series of clauses which are interrelated, and the whole scheme must be looked at as one. I apologise for having spoken for so long, but I have had a good many years in this job and those are my views. This is the worst of many Bills on landed property which I have had to deal with.
5.13 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, this Bill has been a most unhappy Bill, in its
58
reception by the public, its reception by the Press, and certainly in its reception by the Church Commissioners.
It is, I think, generally recognised that some change in the law of leasehold property is desirable, and that leaseholders should have extended rights at the expiry of their leases which they do not now possess; and, indeed, that they should have a right to purchase their property either during the currency of the lease or at its termination. So there has been a substantial measure of agreement about what was required. It might have been thought that, in these circumstances where as I say, a measure of agreement appears to have been reached, the Government could have produced a Bill which would have commanded some agreement and a measure of support.
But, my Lords, that has not happened. This Bill has met with almost universal criticism, apart from the criticism of its political opponents. It has met with the criticism of the Press, of the professions, and of all those unfortunate persons, like my noble friend Lord Silsoe, who will have to try to work it out. It is said to be complex, prolix, unnecessarily obscure. It has also been said to be unfair and confiscatory. And, indeed, it is all these things. I have seen it described in the newspapers as "The Great Leasehold Robbery", and, a final and concluding comment the other day, "It is a mess". My Lords, it is, I regret to say, all those things.
The trouble with this Bill is that it is based upon a principle which is not really capable of being given practical expression. The White Paper boldly pronounced that the Bill:
"will be based on the principle that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder."
That is a principle which is quite unknown to our law. Our English law holds that that which is affixed to the land, be it a house which is built upon the land or anything else, becomes part of the land, That principle is based upon the very practical consideration that one cannot, in fact, deal with the two things separately: the two things are in fact inseparable and incapable of being dealt with apart from one another. You cannot demolish the house; you cannot alter it; you cannot do anything to it without

59
going on the land, which belongs to somebody else. It is because this Bill has been based upon this entirely wrong and, I would suggest, erroneous principle that it has proved to be as complex as it is.
At the General Election the Conservative Party proposed a much more straightforward and simple solution of this problem which would in effect have given the leaseholder a form of statutory tenancy, and I think it is on those lines that the approach to the solution of this problem of leasehold law ought to be directed.
It is, I think, the pursuit of this supposed principle of separate ownership which has induced the Government to extend this Bill to two groups of freeholders to whom the Bill can do nothing but unnecessary harm. My noble friend Lord Gage has mentioned those groups, but I should like to say a few words about the position of charities whose funds have been for many years invested in real estate. No one criticises their standard of estate management, or their consideration for, or their relations with, their tenants. Indeed, one knows of big estates, particularly big estates in London, notably the estate of Alleyn's Gift of God at Dulwich, where the standard of maintenance is exceptionally high and the relationship with the tenants is exceptionally good. I think that that is the case with most charities whose funds are invested in real property.
I myself am a trustee of one such charity in London. I am not aware that any criticism has ever been advanced of our treatment of our tenants. Happily, like the charity of which my noble friend Lord Silsoe spoke, we have been released by the change of mind which was passed over the Bill in the last few weeks. Most of our properties will now lie outside the scope of this Bill. But that is not the case with many charities. There are many charities whose funds are invested in property of precisely the class to which this Bill will apply.
Under the Bill these charities will lose the value of their buildings and receive compensation only for the value of the land. That means that the funds of the societies will be very substantially reduced. The comprehensive management of the estate will become impossible if
60
the leaseholders claim enfranchisement, or, indeed, if they claim—as I think they are most likely to claim—a new lease for 50 years. In either of those contingencies the standards of estate management must be interfered with, and indeed the comprehensive management of the estates will become almost impossible. Redevelopment of the whole of the estates of these charities will become difficult, if not impossible. I hope that the Government will see their way to exclude charities altogether from the operation of this Bill. I can see no useful purpose that will be served by including them, and I hope, as I say, that the Government will decide to leave them out.
Let me now say a word about another group of leaseholders to whom somewhat similar considerations apply. I cannot understand why the Government have thought it necessary to include local authorities in this Bill. Local authorities, of course, own a good deal of leasehold property. Some of it they have acquired as a form of investment, although I think it is not a form of investment that is widely used by local authorities. A more usual reason is to secure the comprehensive redevelopment of the authority's area, particularly the redevelopment of the town centres, many of which are held on leasehold terms. Then a great deal of leasehold property has been acquired by the local authorities for the purpose of reconditioning and future occupation. All these objectives, if not actually defeated, will be made much more difficult if leaseholders claim enfranchisement or an extended lease.
True it is that under the terms of the Bill the Minister can certify in certain cases that property will shortly be required by the local authority, and if he does so certify, then the property will be taken out of the ambit of the Bill. It is true, too, that under the Bill the local authority will retain the development rights, so far as they have been established, and there are certain provisions for dealing with houses which have been constructed by the authority, or purchased by the authority for the express purposes of dealing with a particular overspill population. These provisions will certainly be welcome to the local authorities, and will facilitate the operation of the Bill if they are to be included in it. But, my Lords, local authorities

61
are not bad landlords, and this Bill is really directed against the bad man. Local authorities become landlords in the discharge of their function as public authorities, and I can see no reason why they should be included in the Bill at all. Here again I hope that, on second thoughts, the Minister will decide that no useful purpose is served by retaining local authorities within the scope of this measure.
I shall be interested to know what are the Minister's reasons for doing this. I cannot conceive of any useful purpose which is served by this proposal, and I shall be interested to hear what value the Minister really attaches to it. This is one of those unnecessary complications which arise from the fact that this Bill is based on an unsound and unreal principle. I hope that at a later stage your Lordships will consider that it is not necessary to extend this Bill to local authorities at all.
5.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before I begin my speech, I should like to make a request to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, that he does not retire to tea, as it will be rather disheartening for anyone talking to the Government when there are so few people on the Front Bench.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I understood from my noble friend Lord Kennet that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, had indicated to him the points he was going to raise. Therefore as my noble friend had to meet someone very important outside the Chamber, he took the opportunity of doing so while the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was speaking.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, is it not very unusual that there should be not a single Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench on the Second Reading of this very important Bill? I have never seen such a thing in this House before.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it is always, I consider, both a privilege and a pleasure to listen to and to marvel at the skill and advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he deploys
62
his case, even when, as this afternoon, he is defending the most illogical piece of Government legislation. But to-day was a case which, may I say with respect to him in his absence, brought out the best in him. He was perhaps unlucky to be followed immediately by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who demonstrated with such clarity and force the many iniquitous terms which the Government propose to include in this Bill.
The Leasehold Reform Bill is the third major Land Bill which the Government have introduced within the last two years. Like its predecessors it follows on from the White Paper published in 1966, and like its predecessors its main opposition appears to arise not so much from the general principle of leasehold enfranchisement but more on the terms of the working of this principle. To many informed people the author of the White Paper on Leasehold Reform showed an astonishing lack of appreciation of the working of the leasehold system, and it expressed a completely biased and one-sided view. The White Paper almost churlishly made no comment on the contribution which the leasehold system has made over the past 200 years to the management, development and redevelopment of towns and cities throughout Britain, and notably Bath and Bristol. The Government White Paper simply argued that experience had shown that the whole system was proving monstrously unfair to any occupying leaseholders.
This argument only repeated what has been said for many years and what was, of course, analysed and studied by both the Jenkins Committee in 1948 and, later, by the consortium of professional bodies in 1961. On both these occasions, almost surprisingly, if I may say so, the evidence of major hardship suffered under the system was dismissed as "not proven", and in 1961 it was stated by the professional bodies that the dissatisfaction with the system largely arose from the widespread ignorance of leaseholders' rights under the existing landlord and tenant legislation.
Whether or not this is so I, for one, would agree that in certain circumstances, when you have an unscrupulous landlord—and here perhaps I may add in my experience public landlords are a good

63
deal more unscrupulous and unbending in their negotiations than private landlords—the present system can cause hardship and does require reform, particularly towards the end of a lease. I would also agree in many respects that although the leasehold system has done much good in the past to assist planning and management of urban areas, the time for enfranchisement has come when householders should be given a chance of purchasing their freehold.
But, having said that, I cannot agree with the astonishingly iniquitous terms proposed both in the White Paper and in this Bill. So far as I am aware, during the many occasions that reform has been discussed in the past not even the most radical supporter has suggested that compensation to freeholders should be anything other than at fair market price. Leasehold investments to most people—except perhaps the Government—are quite normal marketable investments which were considered safe, even for widows and orphans. Their capital value has been long established by a formula devised by the professional bodies with the aid of Parry's tables and complicated equations—a formula which most valuation students like myself have taken many years to understand. Why a new formula should suddenly be announced by the Government which reduces the capital value of leasehold investment by, in some cases, as much as 50 per cent. must be quite incomprehensible to any fair-minded person. The new formula is even more astonishing in its concept when one learns that no proper consultation has taken place between the Government and the professional bodies as to its effect.
The new compensation formula is, in my view, the most serious breach of trust that the present Government have so far devised. It smacks right across the sanctity of contract and the faith people can have in its future. Even if a National Opinion Poll were taken, I am sure it would show that leaseholders consider themselves extremely lucky with the present terms of compensation. Perhaps it was an encouraging chink of daylight to read the other day an article written by a leading Socialist land reformer headed, "Reducing hardships caused by the Leasehold Reform Bill", in which he openly admitted that in some cases
64
the terms of compensation would prove harsh. This learned gentleman, Mr. Silkin, went on to suggest a compensation fund should be set up to repay to any hard-done-by freeholder a sum of money which in equity, of course, was already his. This in itself shows, in my opinion, that in the Government camp the seed of justice is beginning to sprout.
Turning from the iniquitous compensation terms under this Bill, which I very much hope will be scrutinised most carefully during the Committee stage, particularly as I am glad to see that the Government cannot hide behind the cloak of a certified Bill, I think that the next most inequitable feature of the Bill is the reimposition of the rateable value limit. It was perhaps not surprising to understand the Government's dilemma in another place over their policy of imposing a rateable limit, because if we accept the principle that the leasehold system is no longer acceptable as a form of modern-day land tenure, including crownholds, then it is quite clear that the benefit should be granted to all leaseholders and not to a chosen few; or, as it is in this case, a chosen majority.
We are told that the rateable limit will affect, as it at present stands, only one per cent. of the one million leaseholders who come under the Bill. This in itself, I suggest, is a strong argument for abolishing the rateable limit. The Government's argument for restoring the limit was curiously vague during the Report stage proceedings in another place, and one can only assume that they feared that if the rateable limit was abolished the Government would be forced in equity to take a further look at the compensation formula.
Much has already been written and said about Clause 19 of the Bill, the relief for a well-managed estate. This in itself is, I suppose, a form of tardy recognition by the Government of the value which exists in the leasehold system. As the clause at present stands, as I understand it, the Minister will be the sole judge of whether an estate is well managed or not. His decision, of course, will affect to a large extent the future value of the area. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he winds up, could explain exactly by what criteria the Minister will judge whether an estate is well run, and,

65
if a new estate owner applies, whether the presentation of a management plan (such as a woodland plan for the Forestry Commission) will be sufficient evidence, particularly if up to that time the previous estate owner had a poor record of management.
A further point occurs to me under Clause 14 of the Bill, which enables a leaseholder to claim an extension of 50 years to his lease. The ground rent is reviewable only after 25 years. It would be interesting to learn from the noble Lord, when he comes to wind up, why the Government have chosen a period of 25 years and not a ten-year period; for this interval, in my opinion, would show a more realistic approach to the value of ground rents.
The two most harmful effects, as I see it, that will arise out of this Bill will be in the first place a general sterilisation of future redevelopment plans by private landlords, and in the second place an increased hesitancy in the housing market, which in turn, of course, will prove harmful to the housing programme. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favour of the leasehold system in the past has been the uniformity and ease within which redevelopment could be planned and executed; and the greatest danger to redevelopment in the future lies of course in the result of fragmentation that will surely follow from this Bill. This in turn must lead to the frustration of good planning. On top of this, as I see it, under Clause 14 the power of tenants to elect at any time during their lease whether or not they wish to purchase their freehold will add to the uncertainties of future redevelopment by landlords and may easily cause a falling off in the standard of housing in many areas.
As to the second harmful effect that I suggest the Bill will cause, and has already caused—that is, damage to the housing programme—whatever excuse the Government may plead about these miserable figures for 1966 (in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, the excuse used to be mortgages and the lack of bricks), the climate of uncertainty is, in the opinion of most well-informed people, the direct cause of the fact that 13,000 fewer houses were built in 1966 than in 1964. This in itself meant that no fewer than 40,000 people were unable to enjoy in 1966 a good modern house, which one
66
recalls was a pledge and hope that had been dangled to them just before the Government took office. This climate of uncertainty has surely sprung from the Government's recent policy and legislation over the last two or three years.
There is, of course, a second and fundamental reason for the static and ever-declining progress of the housing programme, and that is the chaotic delays that occur in planning. Such is the sick state of planning that I recently heard from a number of private developers that it often takes 18 months to obtain planning consent for a house which in itself takes only six months to build. This drag on the progress of the housing programme was recognised by the Government as long ago as 1964, when action was promised, and it must seem surprising to many people that such an urgent piece of legislation on planning should not have had priority over a seemingly less important Leasehold Reform Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to wind up, will perhaps explain this strange order of priority, and also give us some information as to the progress of the new planning legislation.
5.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor declared that he had no interest either way. I hope that equally I may be allowed no feeling of bias, in that my interests lie on both sides of the fence, in the same way as those of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. I am in fact a ground landlord of a number of leasehold houses in Wales, and I am also the owner of a leasehold property in London. I do not think I need speak for long. The case has been admirably made out, first by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, followed by others of your Lordships from all quarters of the House, who have called this a bad Bill. There is not much more that I can add to what they have said from their immense experience of this kind of problem.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor made what I would humbly call a most excellent speech putting our point of view. He has been followed by a number of my noble friends from this side of the House, all adding from

67
their experience to the ultimate condemnation of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke from the Liberal Benches and gave some concrete examples of how the Bill would turn out badly in certain cases. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, with his tremendous background of knowledge of this matter, also described the Bill as a bad one.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, took issue with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and drew attention in particular to the feeling of suffering and the complaints of the leaseholders themselves. He referred particularly to the time when he was a Member of another place and dealt with these complaints from his constituency. I think we must keep this matter in perspective, and I will draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in 1961 an inquiry was made and leaseholders were asked to bring to the attention of the Ministry any specific instances of alleged hardship.
During the few months following, about fifty cases were examined, and the examination that took place failed to substantiate the suggestion that the terms asked by landlords were consistently and widely oppressive. Some of the offers could fairly be described as generous, having regard to the value of the interest involved. What emerged most clearly from the examination was that many lessees were not well-informed, either as to the nature or the limitations of a long lease or on current property values. I think that needs to be said. I do not think all the blame can be laid on landlords. There are many good landlords, and certainly, speaking for myself, the property concern with which I have to do has always been liberal in its granting of new leases and its sales of freeholds for what we consider to be a fair price.
I would remind your Lordships of the Conservative proposals in this field. They are, to leave to the occupying leaseholder three choices: first, the right to a statutory tenancy, as at present exists under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; secondly, the right to a new lease freely negotiated with the freeholder, or, in the case of dispute, by the Lands Tribunal; thirdly, the right to buy the freehold on fair terms. It is when we come to the question of fair terms, right at the beginning of this Bill, in
68
Clause 1(1), that we find the great difference of opinion that lies between members of the Government and every other quarter of this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in opening the debate, said that there was no simple solution to this problem. But that is really the whole trouble. The reason why there has never been any form of leasehold enfranchisement hitherto has always been the difficulty of finding a fair solution. I would suggest that the solution proposed now by the Government, that the land belongs to the landlord and the bricks and mortar to the leaseholder, is far too simple; it is an oversimplifying solution which causes great injustice. I would again refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, on that point, with his great authority and knowledge in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, pointed out that it was no new thing to interfere by passing legislation under the law of contracts, and he pointed particularly to the Rent Acts. But I would suggest that this is a totally different thing: that the Rent Acts were altering the law for the future, whereas the effect of this Bill is almost retrospective, in that a great many transactions have taken place on the basis of the present law which is now to be overturned. The most obvious, of course, is that of estate duty. In many cases estates have paid estate duty, often more than once, on properties where the reversionary value of the house has been taken into account. Now, having paid duty, they are to lose the asset. Equally, there have been sales and deeds of gift, and there was war damage contribution. All of those transactions took place on the basis of the law as we understood it and understand it. Now that is to be arbitrarily overturned for an oversimplifying principle which has been invented by the Government more for its simplicity than its justice. No wonder that one Sunday newspaper described it as "legal gibberish"!
That principle is belied when it comes to the more highly rated properties, where there is to be exemption for properties of a rateable value of over £400 in London and over £200 elsewhere. Here there is certainly one law for the rich and another for the poor. As has been pointed out already in the debate, this will certainly involve a number of anomalies. There

69
will be houses where a leaseholder has done a great deal of improvement himself and the house has thereby been up-rated and is over the limit, for outside London, of £200 per annum, whereas the leaseholder who has not taken the trouble to develop his property will not have increased its rateable value. The one who, one would have thought, was the good tenant will not be able to enfranchise; the other will. There will be examples of houses within one estate which for one reason or another are differently rated: one tenant will be able to enfranchise; the other will not.
My noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Ilford have already referred to the anomalies, difficulties and injustices that will arise in connection with charities and housing associations. This Bill gives to individuals rights against other individuals, and this is a new form of legislation. It is surely essential, therefore, that it should be fair. Yet the terms proposed for the acquiring of freeholds are not even as generous as the State it-self offers in compulsory purchase. I have given my own example. I explained, to begin with, how I had a foot on both sides of the fence but am being injured in both feet. I am sure that a Bill that has this effect cannot be a fair Bill. My leasehold properties in Wales are being compulsorily acquired where they come under the Bill, yet I am unable to have the same privilege with my house in London. I cannot feel that this is a fair Bill. It has been condemned from all parts of the House. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor called it unjust and immoral. I would call it discriminatory and confiscatory.
5.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I also must start by declaring an interest. I am a leaseholder. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in opening the Opposition's case against this Bill ranged very wide. I wondered at one moment what Government measures that he disliked he was not going to throw into the balance against this particular one. He threw in also a couple of nouns and a couple of adjectives which I have no doubt will be taken up in headlines of the Daily Telegraph to-morrow—I have no doubt
70
that is what they were put there for. I will not answer them in kind, because if I did I should not be taken up by the Daily Telegraph to-morrow, or indeed by any other newspaper. Let us leave it at that.
The substance of Lord Brooke of Cumnor's case was answered with such succinctness and elegance by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill that there is little more I need say about it. He conceded half the Government's case. I refer to the points about mobility of labour and improvements; namely, that if you own an expiring lease you have a virtually valueless property and so you find it difficult to move somewhere else, which is a grave social factor in Wales at the moment; and that local authorities are not allowed at the moment to improve houses with less than a 15-year lease of life ahead of them. This includes many unexpired leases which are thereby held in a state of unfitness, entirely artificially, solely by the existence of the leasehold system. Lord Brooke of Cumnor conceded this part of our case, and then said that these problems can be solved in other ways. I wish I knew how.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, raised the special cases of charities, housing associations and local authorities under this Bill. In relation to charities we have here the same position as we had under the Land Commission Bill which we recently had before us in this House. When one is changing the system, conferring a right, changing the balance of rights, interfering with contract, in this case one has to consider only the status of the leaseholder, not that of the freeholder. We felt that we could no go very far in exempting freeholders from the operation of this Bill according to the nature and the purpose of the freeholder. Charities, as they were in the Land Commission Bill, have stayed, from their point of view, on the wrong side of the fence. It seems to me that a charity holding freehold property as an investment must be treated in the same way as any other person, a legal "person" or an individual person, holding freehold property as an investment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, rightly pointed out, we are all united in our respect and admiration for what is done by charities, including the charities we are talking about. The right way to look at this

71
would be to say that in the case of this Bill and the Land Commission, charities might begin to consider whether they should any longer commit a major part of their assets to investments which may be called in question or harmed by the pursuit of social justice itself.
On the matter of the housing associations, the noble Viscount mentioned a couple of cases, which I must admit I did not fully understand from his account of them. The situation is as it was described by my noble friend Lord Mitchison; and if Lord Gage could send me fuller details of cases he thinks he has unearthed which would seem to defeat our shared intention in this respect, I would happily look into them.
As to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, on local authorities, there one finds a slightly different situation. The local authority associations, especially the Association of Municipal Corporations, represented to the Minister that local authorities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill because there was no evidence that they were bad landlords. But once again this is not the point. One is trying to do something for leaseholders, not simply to punish those who have been bad landlords. The Government considered this matter very closely, but came to the conclusion that as in the case of charities one could not discriminate between leaseholders on the basis of the character of the landlord.
All the same, local authorities are in a special position under the Bill. In Clause 29 they may apply to the Minister for a certificate which will enable them to resist the enfranchisement of any property shortly required for redevelopment under certain compensation provisions; and under Clause 30 they may sell the freehold to a leaseholder subject to restrictions on development, so that if they eventually buy back the property for a public purpose they can do so without paying a price which includes its development value. All this was in the White Paper, and this provision in Clause 30 is something akin to the Crownhold which is now becoming familiar to us under the Land Commission Act.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the noble Lord has
72
to say about his willingness to consider special cases, but I hope that when he quotes these general principles it does not mean that he is going back once again to ceasing to discriminate between properties below a certain rateable value. I hope he is not considering any further Amendments of that sort, and that we are going to stick to the £400 and £200 limit.
LORD KENNET: I am coming in a moment to the question of rateable value, under a separate heading.
The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, spoke from an almost unrivalled wideness of experience from the landlord's eye point of view, and almost all will attend to him with the greatest openness of mind. He said that it was a fundamental misconception to say that the bricks and mortar belonged to the tenant because redevelopment nowadays was paid for by the landlord. But in this Bill we are rectifying an old abuse. We are rectifying the system where, typically, it was not paid for by the landlord—in the Welsh situation which gave rise to the whole pressure for this change. In future, developers will no doubt consider, after this Bill is law, as I hope it becomes, whether they wish to issue leases with a rent below two-thirds of the rateable value, or whether they prefer to concentrate on developing for rackrent or for sale, in which case the situation will not be changed by this Bill.
The noble Lord also asked me many questions which all really boil down to one: why cannot the landlord get back an enfranchised freehold property for purposes of redevelopment? We are all interested in redevelopment. On both sides of the House we are interested in redevelopment, in the right place and on the right terms. I should like to say a general word about this redevelopment question. We are interested especially in redevelopment in the "twilight" areas where the housing is bad and at the end of its life. Large areas of our great cities are—and we all know it—a national disgrace. This is where we want to see redevelopment. There are pockets of leasehold property in those areas which have not been redeveloped, and should have been some time ago, and we wish to roll this forward.
I make a distinction here between such areas and the areas which are, shall we

73
say, typical of the good freeholder. I have in mind certain parts of central London, of which we can all think, where it is obvious that there has been a well-managed estate. What do we mean by "redevelopment" here? I, for one, do not want to see Belgravia redeveloped in the sense of being pulled down and having large glass and concrete slabs put on it. Any opposition to the terms of this Bill which is based on the presumed right, or indeed on the wish, of freeholders to carry out that sort of redevelopment in the well-preserved and handsome central areas of our cities seems to me to be a deleterious opposition from the point of view of our urban landscape. If, on the other hand, one means a redevelopment gutting the difficult old bits of a fine square or terrace and keeping the facade, then that is another matter. I think we should introduce this distinction. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, was allowing that distinction in what he said.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I mean that they both exist, do they not? For instance, on the Hyde Park Estate the Ministry of Housing said that we were to pull everything down; and we agreed to that. On the other hand, thank goodness! the Nash terraces do not have to be pulled down. There are both types, are there not?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there are both, and one must not lose sight of the distinction. We have narrowed the discussion to desirable redevelopment, which is of course nowhere near a Nash terrace or the Hyde Park Estate, but the awful stuff in the "twilight" zones of our cities. The Government are not really interested, in so far as this Bill is concerned, in who does the redevelopment, and there is nothing in this Bill which is likely to prevent redevelopment from being carried out. We do not regard the presumed right of the existing great freehold estates to carry out necessary redevelopment as something which should put them in a privileged position vis-à-vis any other possible developer, be it another private developer, be it a local authority, be it a local authority with the help of the Land Commission, be it another private developer with the help of the Land Commission, or indeed be it the original freeholder himself with the help of the Land Commission.
74
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who asked about the Clause 19 schemes. He asked, particularly, what would be evidence of good management when a freeholder applied for a certificate of good management from the Minister. It is an interesting point, and I should like to consider it and inform myself further; and perhaps we can take this up during the discussion of Clause 19 in the Committee stage. I was also interested in the noble Earl's question about a new freeholder who has just bought an existing freehold estate which is about to be enfranchised. He asked what would be his possible evidence of good management, and whether a mere declaration of intention would be enough. If he agrees, I shall answer him later on this point. The noble Earl also asked: why is 25 years taken as the period for review of the ground rent under the 50-year extension. I understand that it is taken because that is the normal period for reviewing a ground rent, and that the alternative period of 10 years, which the noble Earl mentioned, is the more customary period for the review of rack rents. Then he asked me for news of forthcoming planning legislation. If he had read the Press closely on this matter he would know that a White Paper is to be published the day after tomorrow, and I hope that this will give him all the news he desires.
The pressure for the reform of the leasehold system, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, was generated very largely in Wales. The undesirable, old leasehold tenure arose there, because before the issue of the great leases by the Marquess of Bute and other ground landlords in the valleys and in Cardiff, the new workers of the Industrial Revolution who came into those valleys and that city could live only in houses which were the property of the iron masters and the mine-owners. They were virtually tied cottages, tied to an individual enterprise, and they were used by the employers as no more than a weapon in wage negotiations. They were used simply to keep down the demands of the new industrial workers. If they asked for more than they were going to get, they were evicted; and that was that. So those workers turned to the thought of building their own houses. But all the land around belonged to one man, so that, in

75
order to gain access to the land on which to build their own houses, they had to take out a lease, which was inevitably in the form which that one man wished. And the form of the lease was that after 99 years they had to give back the land with the house on it.
This Bill, my Lords, is urgent, and it is urgent because of the historical fact that it was in the late 1860s that many thousands of industrial workers in the valleys of South Wales and in Cardiff fled from their original landlords into the arms of the new ground landlords and built their own houses; and those leases are now falling in. I have been down there and have visited a good many towns and streets of this kind of leasehold property. I have seen the really intense social problem which is created by all those miles of streets on leaseholds falling in all at the same time, or within three or four years of each other. Complete communities are either uprooted or faced by the need to find money on a scale on which they do not know where to find it.
For this reason I became convinced, as indeed the Labour Party have been convinced since 1951—it has been coming up on us slowly as we approach the late 'sixties—of the acute need for this legislation on the ground in that place. The need in England is no less real, but it is less urgent because, for historical reasons, leasehold property in England is more scattered. It is possible for a leaseholder to find another house without leaving his native community. In Wales it is not; there is nothing but leasehold. It is true that there are four times as many leasehold houses in England as there are in Wales, but it is the Welsh situation which has dictated the fact that this Bill should be brought in this year rather than next.
I should like to say a word about the rateable value limit which has attracted a lot of attention in the Press. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised this question with some urgency in this debate. As is well known, the Government have been in some perplexity about this question—and why not? It is an extremely perplexing question. If you have a rateable
76
value limit, then you have a border problem. You create friction between the leaseholder who is just below it, and the leaseholder—who may be his neighbour—who is just above it. This is true wherever you have the limit. If the limit were to be raised, you would simply have another set of leaseholders forming a border problem vis-à-vis each other. If it were to be lowered, you would have a third set. Wherever you put the limit, there would be friction at the boundary.
On the other hand, if you abolish the limit you come face to face with the phenomenon of the windfall, which may, in a few extreme cases, be very substantial indeed—so substantial that it seemed to the Government that it was preferable to accept the border problem, to accept the friction between those who just could and those who just could not enfranchise, than to encounter the manifest undesirability of the very large windfall coming to the leaseholder enfranchising at the fag-end of a high-rateable-value lease. This, therefore, is the provision in the Bill which is brought before your Lordships and which I commend to the House.
My Lords, this is a reform of property law. Like all such reforms, it is intensely complicated. It is one of several such reforms going through the House during this Parliament. It was in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto last time, and this is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, so properly said that he would not advise the House to divide on it. The two Parties are agreed on the principle that something must be done about the leasehold system. I have not myself fully understood what the Conservative Party would have done if it had won the last Election, but if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, correctly I think we are in dispute on the question of compensation, and that alone—that is, how much should the enfranchising lease-holder pay to the freeholder? It is natural—and I make no complaint about it—that the Tory Party should lean towards thinking that the leaseholder should pay rather more towards the well-heeled minority of freeholders. It is natural that the Party to which I am glad to belong should lean the other way and

77
should think more, but I hope and believe not improperly more, about the interests of the less well-heeled majority in this matter.
My Lords, the Bill which I commend to your Lordships is, I submit, a well conceived Bill; but in saying that I do not mean to say that I think it is perfect. I hope that between us we shall be able to improve it to a certain extent on Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons: That they concur in the Resolution communicated to them in the Lords Message of Monday the 5th instant.

SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, together with the Report thereupon from the Law Commission.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.